JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of removal from service from the post of Professor in Orthopaedics in the Medical College, for misconduct. ( 2. ) AT the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Professor in Orthopaedics in the Medical College, Raipur. Respondent No. 4, Mahendra Kumar Mahilong, was a second year student in the Medical College, Raipur. He had a fall from a stair-case at about midnight on the night intervening 6th and 7th May 1982, and immediately he was admitted in Ward No. 8 of the Medical College Hospital with fracture of spine with paraplegia. On the morning at about 7 A. M. he was examined by the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 continued to be in agony because of retention of urine and faeces. He is the only son of his parents, Jagdish Prasad Mahulong and Savitri Mahilong, who immediately came to the hospital to attend on him. He was to be operated on 10-5-1982, but the operation was postponed to 12-5-1982 and then to 16-5-1982. However, in the meanwhile, he was operated at about 5 P. M. on 14-5-1982 as an emergency case and he was kept under special diet. Some time thereafter, the special diet was stopped. There was agitation by the students union for the neglect of respondent No. 4 and for stopping of special diet to him. Respondent No. 4 also said that he had orally told the office hearers of the students union that the petitione had taken Rs. 400/- for doing the operation and for providing a lumbo sacral belt to him 15 days after the operation. Respondent No. 4 also made a written complaint to the President of the Students Union on 30-6-1982 of the petitioner having taken Rs. 400/- in two instalments for carrying on the operation. Earlier, he was postponing the operation and respondent No. 4 was not being given the necessary facilities. The complaint was handed over to the Dean, who forwarded the same to the State Government for necessary action. ( 3. ) A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Joint-Director-cum-Superintendent of the D. K. Hospital, Raipur, and he submitted his report on 11-7-1982 that some money was paid to the petitioner for rendering service to respondent No. 4, who was admitted in the hospital for treatment as per statement of his father. ( 3. ) A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Joint-Director-cum-Superintendent of the D. K. Hospital, Raipur, and he submitted his report on 11-7-1982 that some money was paid to the petitioner for rendering service to respondent No. 4, who was admitted in the hospital for treatment as per statement of his father. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also obtained one letter from respondent No. 4 dated 8-7-1982 that he was getting proper treatment and no amount has been paid or demanded from him or his parents by the petitioner. Some senior students made him sign the complaint, so that they could go on strike. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 14-7-1982. It appears that his suspension was revoked because he was not charge-sheeted within 45 days as required under the rules and he was posted as Professor in orthopaedics in the Rewa Medical College. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 9-11-1982 in respect of the following two charges :- (1) That he had charged Rs. 200/- from Jagdish Prasad Mahilong, whose son was admitted in the Medical College Hospital as a case of fracture of spine with paraplegia, for performing the operation. This was grave misconduct. (2) That he charged Rs. 180/- from Jagdish Prasad Mahilong for providing a lumbo sacral belt for his son. This was a corrupt practice. Along with the charge sheet, the statement of allegation was enclosed, so also list of witnesses and documents to be relied on by the department. The petitioner was directed to submit his written statement within 15 days and to discolose whether he wanted to be heard in person and the names and addresses of his witnesses and the documents which he wanted to produce in support of his defence. ( 4. ) THE petitioner requested for inspection of documents and he was given the necessary inspection in the office of the Dean, Medical College, Raiput, on 26-11-1982, and submitted his written statement on 16-12-1982, denying the allegation and stating that he had been falsely implicated, because the students union was annoyed as the petitioner had stopped special diet, to respondent No. 4, which he no longer required and this was evident from the subsequent letter written by respondent No. 4, withdrawing the complaint. Dr. Dr. R. P. Bhargava, Dean of the Gandhi Medical College, bhopal, was appointed the enquiring officer, while the Joint-Director and the superintendent of the Hospital was the presenting officer. The petitioner was permitted to engage a senior defence counsel to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. The department examined 5 witnesses and in defence 8 witnesses were examined. Out of the departmental witnesses, three of them, Shaukat Alam, President of the Students Union, savitri Bai, mother of respondent No. 4 and he himself left the cross-examination incomplete as a protest against harassment by the defence counsel. The enquiring officer after recording evidence and hearing arguments, found both the charges proved, though he held that money was not demanded by the petitioner and the sum involved was a triffle one and so a liberal view may be taken by the Government. Accepting the finding, the State Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 7-11-1984, as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 26-11-1984. The matter was referred by the State Government to the public Service Commission, which concurred with the finding and the proposed punishment. The state Government held that the charges have been duly proved and the cause shown was not satisfactory and so he has been removed from service. Instead of preferring an appeal to the Governor under the M. P. Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the petitioner straightaway filed the present petition. ( 5. ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had taken all due care and attention to treat respondent No. 4 and though his operation was provisionally fixed earlier on two dates, the same was postponed and actually the operation was carried on 14-5-1982 after he was found in a fit condition to undergo the operation. The operation was successful and respondent No. 4 had fully recovered. No body doubted his skill and ability for carrying on the operation and that the operation was successful. It is false to say that he wilfully delayed the operation for ulterior motives to get money from the parents of the respondent No. 4. He never demanded any money and this is the finding of the enquiring officer. Since lumbo sacral belt was not available in the market, he secured one belt for respondent No. 4 on payment of its price from the manufacturer. He never demanded any money and this is the finding of the enquiring officer. Since lumbo sacral belt was not available in the market, he secured one belt for respondent No. 4 on payment of its price from the manufacturer. There was instruction from the Joint Director that special diet to a patient should be stopped when no longer required and, therefore, he had stopped special diet to respondent No. 4, as he was showing good progress. This annoyed the students union, who then started agitating the matter and also started humiliating the petitioner. A false case of demand of money for carrying on the operation was concocted and respondent No. 4 was made to submit a written complaint on 30-6-1982, one and a half months after the operation. That the complaint was false as evident from the subsequent letter written by respondent No. 4 on 8-7-1982, withdrawing the complaint. The attending surgeon has to decide, looking to the condition of the patient and other circumstances, when the operation is to be performed and in the present case the operation was done at the opportune moment, which is evident from the early recovery of the patient. The order of removal from service is vitiated on the following grounds :- (1) That there is violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as he was not furnished with a copy of the preliminary enquiry report, conducted by the Joint Director, dated 11-7-1982, nor was he given copy of his statement recorded by the Joint Director. (2) That out of the 5 witnesses examined by the department, statements of three of them were incomplete, as they refused and left the place before completion of the cross-examination. So the only evidence left is that of the father of the patient, Jagdish Prasad Mahilong, who himself is the complainant and highly interested witness. His evidence is discrepant. He prevaricated as to when the first instalment of Rs. 200/- was paid, whether on 12th or 13th May 1982. There is no corroboration to his testimony. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty on the statement of such a solitary witness, who is not a witness of sterling quality. (3) The punishment imposed is unduly harsh and excessive, looking to period of satisfactory service record of the petitioner. ( 6. There is no corroboration to his testimony. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty on the statement of such a solitary witness, who is not a witness of sterling quality. (3) The punishment imposed is unduly harsh and excessive, looking to period of satisfactory service record of the petitioner. ( 6. ) THAT State Government in its return, did not dispute that respondent No. 4 was operated by the petitioner and he recovered from his ailment after the operation. The petitioner had prescribed a special diet and there was no occasion for withdrawing the special diet. The circular letter of the Joint Director contained instructions to the doctors not to give special diet indiscriminately and that it should be given on prescription by the consultant. It is the usual practice in the Medical Colleges to treat the medical students with utmost care and attention and to give special diet for early recovery. However, stoppage of the special diet has nothing to do with the proceeding that was ultimately taken against the petitioner and then his removal from service. It is not correct that respondent No. 4 was persuaded by the students union to make a false complaint against the petitioner. There is no reason why the students union should have strained relation with a senior teacher and that too in a professional college. There is also no reason why respondent No. 4 and his parents would falsely implicate the petitioner, who had operated respondent No. 4 and cured him. Respondent No. 4 has stated that he was pressurised by the petitioner in writing the letter dated 7-11-1982, withdrawing the complaint. All reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. He was furnished with the charge sheet and the statement of allegations, list of witnesses and the documents in support. He was given inspection of documents and by way of abundant caution he was also permitted to engage a senior defence counsel. This was resented by the departmental witnesses, three of them left the witness-box in a huff after being harassed by the defence counsel. Neither in the written statement, nor in his reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner alleged that he has not been furnished copies of certain documents, which caused prejudice to his defence. This was resented by the departmental witnesses, three of them left the witness-box in a huff after being harassed by the defence counsel. Neither in the written statement, nor in his reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner alleged that he has not been furnished copies of certain documents, which caused prejudice to his defence. His main contention was that out of 5 witnesses, 3 witnesses were not fully cross-examined and their statements being incomplete, cannot be taken into consideration and the only witness left is father of respondent No. 4, who should not be believed being the complainant himself. The petitioner was allowed to examine 8 defence witnesses, including himself. Besides, he was also examined by the enquiring officer. Arguments were heard and then the report was submitted by the enquiring officer, giving cogent and valid reasons for coming to his findings. The State Government, on going through the material on record, accepted the finding recorded by the enquiring officer and then referred the matter to the Public service Commission, which concurred with the finding and the proposed punishment. The charges in a departmental enquiry are not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial and strict rules of the Evidence Act are not applicable. The evidence of Jadgish Prasad Mahilong, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, mainly the postponement of the operation twice for no valid reasons, lead to the only conclusion that for ulterior monetary consideration, the operation was postponed and it was actually carried on after payment of money. The petitioner was also not expected to provide lumbo sacral belt himself. He could have, if he so felt, moved the college authorities for supply of belt to the patient. There being alternative remedy of appeal, the petition is incompetent and no interference is called for in this writ petition. The Public Service Commission, in its separate report, submitted that after going through the record, formed its own opinion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. There is no reason for not accepting the evidence of the father of the patient and nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to discredit him. He had no axe to grind against the petitioner. Coupled with these circumstances, the charges have been found proved. ( 7. There is no reason for not accepting the evidence of the father of the patient and nothing has been brought out in his cross-examination to discredit him. He had no axe to grind against the petitioner. Coupled with these circumstances, the charges have been found proved. ( 7. ) AFTER having heard the counsel at length and gone through the entire record, we are of the opinion that there is no case for interference in the writ petition. At the outset, it may be mentioned that an appeal lay under the rules to the Governor against the order of removal made by the State Government. The petitioner has not preferred an appeal on the pretext that the order of removal has been issued in the name of the governor. Whatever that be, since the petition was admitted for hearing, we propose to decide the petition on merit. ( 8. ) REGARDING the first contention that the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Joint Director dated 11-7-1982, and the copy of his own statement recorded by him a day earlier, the petitioner had applied for inspection of the documents and he was given necessary inspection. This is evident from his application dated 29-11-1982 that he was given inspection by the Dean, Medical college, Raipur, on 26-11-1982, though he complained that he had to waste full 9 days for getting the inspection. The written statement was filed thereafter. No grievance has been made in the written statement or in the reply to the show cause notice that he was not given inspection of these documents. So there was no question of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner, as he had inspected the necessary documents. The witnesses cited were examined in his presence and he was permitted to engage a senior defence counsel. In fact, three of the witnesses for the department left the witness-box complaining of harassment by the defence counsel. Eight defence witnesses were examined and after hearing arguments, findings were recorded by the enquiring officer. Concurring with the findings, the State Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, proposing the punishment. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. The matter was then referred to the Public Service Commission, who concurred with the findings and the proposed punishment. Concurring with the findings, the State Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, proposing the punishment. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. The matter was then referred to the Public Service Commission, who concurred with the findings and the proposed punishment. Thereafter, the order of removal from service was passed by the State Government, on consideration of the entire material, including the opinion of the Public Service Commission. ( 9. ) THE Supreme Court, in State of M. P. vs. Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623 , has held :- "under Article 311 (2), a public servant is entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges framed against him. A proper opportunity must be afforded to him at the stage of enquiry after the charge is supplied to him as well as at the second stage when punishment is about to be imposed on him. If the first enquiry was materially defective and denied the public servant an opportunity to prove his case, it is impossible to hold that a reasonable opportunity guaranteed to a public servant by Article 311 (1) had been afforded to him. " Here, it may be pointed out that Article 311 of the Constitution was amended in 1976, doing away with the second opportuntiy to show cause against the proposed punishment. But here two opportunites were given to the petitioner, as per the rules, one at the enquiry stage and other after the enquiry was over. The Supreme Court in state of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , has held :- "in considering whether a public officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, does not apply and even if that rule is not applied, the high Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities. holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant, it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the deliquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The high Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the deliquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at the conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly helf the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which there findigs can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. " Again the Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Murlidhar, AIR 1963 SC 404 , has held :- "in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the finding recorded by a competent tribunal in a departmental enquiry so that if the High Court has purported to reappreciate the evidence for itself that would be outside its jurisdiction. However, if it is shown that the impugned findings recorded by the administrative Tribunal are not supported by any evidence, the High Court would be justified in setting aside the said findigs. " Then again, the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512 , has held:- "the suffciency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of the finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. " ( 10. ) IT is true that the findings recorded against the petitioner are based mainly on the evidence of the sole testimony of Jadgish Prasad Mahilong, father of the patient, respondent No. 4, and there is no doubt that he is an interested witness inasmuch as he was the complainant, but we have to see whether he would falsely implicate a Doctor, who was treating his son and who was his Professor in the Medical College. Undoubtedly, the patient was examined by the petitioner on the morning of 7-5-1982. There was fracture of spine with paraplegia. The patient was in great agony due to retention of urine and faeces. It is also true that there is nothing to show that the petitioner had demanded money before performance of the operation, but there was a general impression in the hospital that unless money was paid, the petitioner would not carry on the operation. So the father was persuaded to go and give money to the petitioner, because the operation was fixed for 10-5-1982, then postponed to 12-5-1982 and then fixed for 16-5-1982. The father of respondent No. 4 paid Rs. 200/- to the petitioner at his residence and the date of operation was advanced to 14-5-1982 and it was carried on as an emergency operation at 5 P. M. on 14-5-1982, although that was not the day of operation of the petitioner, and the condition of the patient remained the same throughout. The enquiring officer observed that normally a case put up for surgery is not postponed without any valid reason, more so, in case of a medical student or a Doctor. The enquiring officer observed that normally a case put up for surgery is not postponed without any valid reason, more so, in case of a medical student or a Doctor. Here, the operation had been postponed twice for which no valid reason has been given in spite of the fact that the patient was in great agony and there were entreaties by his parents for carrying on the operation, as he is their sole child. Since the condition remained the same, he could as well have been operated on 10-5-1982 or 12-5-1982. The defence put by the petitioner for doing the operation in the evening of 14-5-1982 on the advice of the Professor of anaesthesia has been found not convincing. The petitioner could give no satisfactory reply, when asked by the enquiring officer, to explain the reason for dissatisfaction among the students, relations of the patient and the patient himself. Clearly, the patient, who had been paralysed and subsequently recovered to a great extent as a result of the treatment given, would be extremely grateful to the Doctor. But here the attitude was just the reverse. Mere stoppage of special diet, as attributed to the cause of the complaint against the petitioner, could not have been reason for dissatisfaction of the patient, his parent or the students. Stoppage of special diet was the lame excuse. The petitioner was bent upon harassing the patient. May be, because he had to return Rs. 200/- taken by him, due to agitation by the students. The patient has stated that the contents of the letter dated 8-7-1982 taken from him by the petitioner were wrong and were written under pressure, as he had apprehension that in case he refused to write the letter, he may be given wrong treatment and failed in the examination. The departmental witnesses were undoubtedly harassed by the defence counsel, resulting in their leaving the witness-box, as they could no longer tolerate the behaviour of the lawyer. There is ample evidence to substantiate the statement of Jagdish Prasad Mahilong. Similarly, it is not disputed that the petitioner supplied a lumbo sacral belt for Rs. 170/- or Rs. 180/- to the patient. The receipt of purchase was in the name of the petitioner and it was obtained subsequently and he never cared to hand-over the bill to the patients father. Similarly, it is not disputed that the petitioner supplied a lumbo sacral belt for Rs. 170/- or Rs. 180/- to the patient. The receipt of purchase was in the name of the petitioner and it was obtained subsequently and he never cared to hand-over the bill to the patients father. It may be mentioned here that according to the statement of the defence witnesses, Dr. A. C. Dhada (D. W. 3) and Dr/ a. A. Saify (D. W. 6) the date of operation was fixed on the instruction of the operating surgeon. So, unless the complaint against the petitioner is true, there is no valid reason why the operation would have been postponed for no valid reason to 10-5-1982 and 12-5-1982 and it was carried on, on 14-5-1982, in the evening as an emergency operation and which was not the day of operation of the petitioner. It was because Rs. 2007- was paid to him on 12-5-1982. Jagdish Prasad Mahilong was confused and stated in his statement that money was paid on 13-5-1982, but subsequently corrected himself by saying that money was paid on 12-5-1982. The statement was recorded a year after the incident and this discrepancy is hardly of any consequence. The fact remains that money was paid for carrying on the operation. So, there was no error committed in relying on the statement of Jagdish Prasad Mahilong, coupled with the circumstantial evidence, in holding both the charges are proved against the petitioner. ( 11. ) REGARDING punishment, the Supreme Court, in State of Orissa vs. Bidyabhushan, AIR 1963 SC 779 , has held : - "the reasonable opportunity contemplated by Article 311 (2) has manifestly to be in accordance with the rules framed under Article 309 of the constitution. But the Court, in a case in which an order of dismissal of a public servant is impugned, is not concerned to decide whether the sentence imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the gravity of the misdemeanour established. The reason, which induced the punishing authority, if there has been enquiry consistent with the prescribed rules, are not justiciable, nor is the penalty open to review by the court. The reason, which induced the punishing authority, if there has been enquiry consistent with the prescribed rules, are not justiciable, nor is the penalty open to review by the court. If the order of dismissal may be supported on any finding as the substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has no jurisdiction if the findings of enquiry officer or the Tribunal prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour to direct the authandrity to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all, it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice. " Therefore, the impugned order of removal from service passed against the petitioner suffers from no infirmity and is based on evidence on record and there is no contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution or of the service rules for conducting enquiry and not giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. ( 12. ) RELIANCE has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following comments in the book "fractures and Joint Injuries", by the authors Watson-Jones, at page 839, Sixth Edn. under the caption "early Management of Spinal Injuries" :- "the literature on early management of spinal injuries with paraplegia is dominated by an argument, now over 100 year old, as to whether early surgery is of value. As yet no one has shown that early surgical endeavours have helped either in greater neurological recovery, or that spinal function and mobility is definitely improved by such procedures. On the contrary, many particularly Guttman, Morgan et al, Bedbrook and Sussman have shown that ill-advised but even adequate surgery can cause extra complications to occur. These include greater spinal deformity, increased neurological damage, rigid spines and increased general complications, such as urinary infection and thrombosis. The key word for management when a patient is admitted should be prevention. Prevention of deformity, pressure areas, prevention of debilitation, prevention of loss of further muscle power, prevention of respiraory and thrombic episodes. Each method of care must coordinate with the others, and dominance of one method must be avoided. The key word for management when a patient is admitted should be prevention. Prevention of deformity, pressure areas, prevention of debilitation, prevention of loss of further muscle power, prevention of respiraory and thrombic episodes. Each method of care must coordinate with the others, and dominance of one method must be avoided. " This is to emphasise that there should be no haste in spinal operations and early operation may result in complications. Here, the condition of the patient was more or less stable between the dates of admission on 7th May and 14th May, when he was operated, except slight improvement in level of sensation. So the patient very well could have been operated on 10th or 12th May, especially as admitted by the petitioner, the patient being a medical student, required prompt attention. He was also in great agony and complications would have arisen for not passing of urine and faeces. So there were no valid reasons to postpone the operation twice and to carry out an emergency operation on 14th May in the evening, though the condition remained the same throughout. It was unusual for the petitioner to have suddenly carried out the emergency operation on a day, when that was not his operation day and that too in the evening, when normally operations are carried out in the morning. According to the petitioner, this was on the advice of the Professor of Anaesthesia, Dr. T. C. Choudhury (D. W. 1 ). But Dr. Choudhury has only said that it was emergency operation because the patient was a medical student. That being the case, the operation ought to have been done at the earliest on the 10th itself. According to Dr. K. Sudarshan (D. W. 2), Reader in orthopaedics, laminectomy operation was done and emergency laminectomy is done only if there is increase in paraplegia. That was not the case here. Dr. A. C. Dhada (D. W. 3), R. S. O. , Orthopaedic, said that the earlier dates of operation were fixed in consultation with the petitioner, though another R. S. O. Dr. A. A. Saify (D. W. 6) said that only the first date was fixed in consultation with the petitioner, but both said that the earlier dates were provisional, though the parents of the patient were informed. Dr. A. A. Saify (D. W. 6) said that only the first date was fixed in consultation with the petitioner, but both said that the earlier dates were provisional, though the parents of the patient were informed. Dr. S. K. Tiwari (D. W. 4) Reader in Medicine had examined the patient on the 12th May at about 12. 30 P. M. The patient had traumatic para-peresis with bladder and rectal involvement and there was improvement in the muscle power grading and sensations. So operation could and should have been done on the 12th May at least, if not earlier. ( 13. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following two decisions of the Supreme Court wherein removal/dismissal from services were quashed in writ petitions. In Bhagat Ram vs. State of H. P. AIR 1983 SC 454 , the removal from service of a forest guard was quashed after finding that there was the presenting officer and the co-deliquent was represented by another officer, but the forest guard, a Class IV employee was not given any such assistance till 3 witnesses were examined and they were not recalled. The case against the co-deliquent was separated and he was examined against the forest guard and the findings were perverse. In the other case of hari Shankar Sharma vs. Commissioner, Agra Division, AIR 1987 SC 556 , the Supreme court quashed the dismissal from service of a deliquent employee under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. The deliquent was a supervisor in Water Works and he was charged with embezzlement of certain amounts of salary and wages of employees working under him. No complaint was made by the respondent or by any employee before lodging of the F. I. R. The Tahsildar found the charges to be baseless, yet, he was charge-sheeted and punished, though the charges were not substantiated. In the first case, there were serious irregularities in the departmental proceedings and there was no material to substantiate the charges, and in the second case, in spite of the report of the enquiring officer that the charges were baseless, the deliquent was punished. In the present case, the departmental proceedings suffered from no infirmities. Specific charges were framed, statement of allegations was furnished with the list of witnesses and documents, inspection of documents was given and he was allowed to. engage a senior defence counsel. In the present case, the departmental proceedings suffered from no infirmities. Specific charges were framed, statement of allegations was furnished with the list of witnesses and documents, inspection of documents was given and he was allowed to. engage a senior defence counsel. The witnesses were cross-examined, 8 defence witnesses were examined and the findings recorded by the enquiring officer are based on the material on record. The findings were approved by the State Government after obtaining consent of the Public service Commission about the findings and the proposed punishment. It appears that the greed for money made the petitioner impervious to human sufferings, in spite of his being a member of the noble medical profession. The petitioner even did not have any consideration for his own student in the medical college. What ordeals ordinary patients had to undergo can very well be imagined. Looking to the gravity of the charges and the wide-spread malaise in this regard, the Government thought it fit to remove the petitioner from service. ( 14. ) WITH the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.