'Stooped too low to punish a senior doctor!' - SC slams State officials, Sets Aside Penalty imposed on retired medical officer

New Delhi: Granting relief to a retired Senior Medical Officer who was employed under the Punjab Government, the Supreme Court recently set aside the order of penalty imposed on him in a disciplinary proceeding.

The top court bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta opined that the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the order of penalty "were nothing but a ruse to wreak vengeance" for he had dragged high officials of the Government of Punjab to the High Court to obtain his legitimate monetary dues.

"This happens to be a case where certain officials of the GoP have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a court of law. While deprecating such vile acts of the concerned officials, we see the need to adequately compensate the appellant," observed the Apex Court bench, while setting aside the penalty order and granting Rs 50,000 costs to the appellant.

"Accordingly, we direct that the appellant shall be entitled to costs assessed conservatively at Rs.50,000/-, to be released in his favour within the aforesaid period. Should there be any default, the appellant shall be free to bring it to our notice for appropriate direction. We grant liberty to the GoP to realize the amount of costs payable in terms hereof from the persons responsible after fixing responsibility in accordance with law," ordered the Supreme Court.

These observations were made by the Court while considering an appeal filed by a Senior Medical Officer, who was relieved of his duty and who was made to retire eleven days before his retirement on superannuation on 31st March 2017 as a charge-sheet was issued against him on 20th March, 2017 in connection with disciplinary action that was proposed against him under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970).

In the charge-sheet, it was alleged that the appellant had committed misconduct by (i) not complying with the direction of the Election Commission; (ii) proceeding on leave without sanction; (iii) failing to take part in the pulse polio programme and giving threats for legal action to the Senior Assistant of the Civil Surgeon, Sangrur and (iv) not complying with the orders of the superior officers.

Also Read: Supreme Court Denies to Stay Telangana HC Order Striking Down Local Quota Criteria for PG Medical Admissions

Following these proceedings, the appellant doctor was made to retire and the authorities also ordered a cut of 2% pension with cumulative/permanent effect. The doctor challenged this order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which modified this order to mention a 2% pension cut for a period of five years. Challenging this, the doctor filed the plea before the Apex Court bench.

While adjudicating the matter, the Supreme Court bench observed that the validity of any disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstones of Articles 14, 16, and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable.

The Court further reiterated that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not reviewed unless there is a violation of natural justice principles or unless the order is ex-facie arbitrary or capricious.

"After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated," it observed.

Relying on the order in the case of Madhayamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, the bench observed, "...it would be apt to observe that in relation to disciplinary proceedings, subject to just exceptions, natural justice would envisage observance of procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct and imposing a punishment on him for such misconduct. While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by this Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable."

Addressing the facts of the case, the court acknowledged that leave is regulated by rules that need to be complied with by each public servant. In this regard, the Court did not find any circumstances to hold the appellant guilty of serious misconduct.

Even though the Court was informed by the prosecution that the Civil Surgeon had refused to sanction the leave or that the appellant was telephonically informed about this, the Court concluded that there was no record of the Civil Surgeon's refusal to sanction leave. Regarding the accusation of not participating in the pulse polio program and thereby violating the Election Commission's directions, the Court observed, "It is the clear finding of the Inquiry Officer, based on the evidence on record, that the appellant was not assigned any duty in connection with election duty and pulse polio programme during the period he wished to avail leave to attend court proceedings before the High Court. Insofar as defiance of Election Commission’s directions by the appellant are concerned, no such written directions were part of the documentary evidence led before the Inquiry Officer...Rather curiously, the Inquiry Officer resorted to ingenuity to hold the appellant guilty."

"As is evident from the report, the prosecution having failed to establish that the appellant had been assigned election duty as well as duty associated with the pulse polio programme, the Inquiry Officer went on record to hold the charges under consideration proved by referring to what was, in his perception, the duty of a senior medical officer who has been in charge of an organisation. It needs no discussion that the Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty for a perceived failure to perform a moral duty. Not only was it completely extraneous, but such a finding was clearly at variance with the charge levelled against the appellant. We hold that holding the appellant guilty of a perceived failure to perform a duty not being the charge in respect of which any opportunity of explanation was given, such a finding could not have been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority to impose penalty on the appellant," it further observed.

Apart from this, the bench also pointed out that the appellant had submitted a detailed response to the inquiry report. "Dismissing the claims by a single sentence that the same are not acceptable, is not part of a fair procedure. This is a substantial ground for which appellant’s grievance seems to be justified," the bench observed at this outset.

Referring to the High Court's order of modifying the penalty, the Supreme Court bench observed that "in a rare and appropriate case, to shorten litigation and for exceptional reasons to be recorded in writing," a high court may substitute the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee. 

"However, what has overwhelmed our ability of comprehension is that the Division Bench despite having returned clear findings in favour of the appellant adopted a hands-off approach by leaving the findings with regard to the charges untouched. In our considered opinion, the tenor of the impugned order does suggest that the Division Bench found the appellant to have been wronged and regard being had thereto, the Division Bench ought to have set things right by interfering with the findings and granting full relief that we intend top grant to the appellant. The impugned order, insofar as it declines to interfere with the findings on the charges, being clearly indefensible, we proceed to grant relief to the appellant as indicated hereafter," the bench further noted.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court bench ordered, "The impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside together with the order of dismissal passed by the Single Judge. The order of penalty passed by the appellant’s Disciplinary Authority also stands set aside and the writ petition is allowed. We direct that the appellant shall be entitled to full pension without any cut. Whatever quantum has been deducted from his pension shall be returned, within three months from date, together with interest @ 6% per annum."

Before parting, the court also referred to the Election Commission's order clearly stating that the doctors and officers who are due to retire within six months be exempted from election duty. In this regard. the Court observed, "In all fairness, the Disciplinary Authority ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant on the face of such clear order of the Election Commission. The appellant is, therefore, quite right in contending that the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the order of penalty were nothing but a ruse to wreak vengeance for he having dragged high officials of the GoP to the High Court and in tasting success to obtain his legitimate monetary dues. The Constitutional concept is that not only the country but every State in the country would be a welfare state. As the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, none can perhaps deny that a welfare state ought to strive for achieving the maximum welfare and securing the best interests of the people."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-relief-to-punjab-medical-officer-270263.pdf

Also Read: CIC imposes penalty on DGHS in Artemis Hospital licensing case