HC quashes State disciplinary proceedings against doctor who resigned after being denied leave

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court bench recently quashed the disciplinary proceedings against a lady doctor, who was working as an associate professor in a state medical college.

Even though she had resigned from her post after facing difficulty to take care of her child and continuing her job at same time, the State authorities kept her resignation pending for seven months, rejected it later and initiated disciplinary proceedings.

Providing relief to the doctor, the HC bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary noted that "Despite the best efforts of all still, how a working woman can be harassed even in this era is reflected in the facts of the present case."

"In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 25.09.2020 & 26.09.2020 are hereby quashed. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as having resigned from her post w.e.f. 24.02.2020 and shall grant her benefit which she is entitled to by treating her to be in service till 24.02.2020," read the order.

The matter concerned the petitioner doctor who after getting selected by U.P Public Service Commission, joined as a lecturer at the Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College, Meerut. Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Associate Professor and was transferred to Saharanpur Medical College. Even though the petitioner challenged the transfer order, it could not succeed. 

Meanwhile, according to an order issued by the State Government, the petitioner along with some other Doctors had been directed to render their services at Saharanpur Medical College along with the previous place of posting of petitioner i.e. Meerut Medical College.

The petitioner doctor by means of several applications expressed her difficulty in rendering the services & sought child-care leave on account of medical issue of her daughter who has a severe case of Bronchial Asthma and suffered from frequent Asthmatic attacks which requires tonsillectory plus immune therapy as well as constant care & attention.

Also Read: Doctors Report reveals Entry and Exit Point of Bullet both on Front Side of Chest: HC orders NMC inquiry on two doctors

However, neither the leave of the petitioner doctor was sanctioned nor the salary was paid to her. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner had approached the authorities and submitted five applications seeking childcare leave and medical leave. However, none of them were considered. 

The petitioner informed the court that she was not paid any salary for the period July 2019 to September 2019 and January 2020 to 24 February 2020. Thereafter, the doctor approached the authorities and urged them to consider her bonafide and genuine claim else she will be left with no other choice than to resign from the service.

When the authorities did not consider her representation, she ultimately tendered her resignation on 24.02.2020. Shockingly, neither her resignation was accepted nor rejected till 3 months notice period for accepting her resignation expired.

After a lapse of more than 7 months from the date of resignation, the authorities had initiated an inquiry on account of her absence from duty. Another order was issued and the resignation by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of public interest.

Thereafter, the matter reached the High Court bench and the doctor sought relief. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner was stayed by the HC bench by an order dated 02.12.2020.

By the concerned order, the court had provided the authorities with an opportunity for justifying their action. Further, the court had also asked the State for re-visiting their orders by expressing that such a trivial matter should be given quietus by accepting leave of the petitioner without pay w.e.f. 21.03.2020 and allowing her to resign. However, in the Counter Affidavit, the State did not mention anything about revisiting the concerned orders.

While considering the matter, the Court noted that the concerned doctor, being a mother, was facing difficulty in handling her child in need of care along with her job.

"In the given circumstances, initially, she applied for leave as may be granted to her under the service rules and finding that the same is not possible she even resigned on 24.02.2020. The resignation was kept pending for as good as seven months and the impugned orders dated 25.09.2020 & 26.09.2020 were passed. Any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible. Presuming the worst, it was not possible for the department to grant any further leave to the petitioner, including leave without pay. suffice would have been in the given circumstances to accept the resignation of the petitioner," the court noted.

However, noting that the authorities did not accept her resignation, the bench observed, "This Court fails to understand what purpose is achieved by the respondents by keeping the petitioner in service from 24.02.2020 i.e. from the date of resignation onwards. During the said period, they could not appoint any other person in place of the petitioner, therefore, the work of the college continued to suffer and the public at large in no manner benefited. The entire issue could have been best served by accepting her resignation. The petitioner had a right to resign on 24.02.2020 and her resignation had to be accepted as till that date neither any departmental inquiry was initiated against her nor there was any other reason available to the respondents for not accepting the resignation. Even her immediate superior administrative authority, i.e., the principal of the college, had recommended accepting her resignation from the service."

Further noting that the State counsel could not give any reason for not accepting the resignation of the petitioner, the HC bench mentioned in the order, "This Court finds that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Dr. Sonal Sachdeva (Supra). The petitioner in the given facts and circumstances is treated arbitrarily by the respondents. The respondents were bound to accept the resignation of the petitioner and, there was no necessity to conduct any inquiry against the petitioner."

"In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 25.09.2020 & 26.09.2020 are hereby quashed. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as having resigned from her post w.e.f. 24.02.2020 and shall grant her benefit which she is entitled to by treating her to be in service till 24.02.2020. Such an exercise shall be conducted expeditiously, say in not more than two months from the date a copy of this order is placed before respondent no.2, Director, Medical Education & Training, 6th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow," read the court order as the bench quashed the government inquiry order.

To read the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/allahabad-high-court-order-199965.pdf

Also Read: Allahabad HC to hear petition against Dolo manufacturer on Feb 20