Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2751 (ALL)

Savita Bhatt v. State of U. P.

2013-11-08

MAHENDRA DAYAL, UMA NATH SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT (Per Mahendra Dayal, J.) The instant writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 04.10.2013 passed by Principal Secretary Medical, U.P. Government, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner who was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Balrampur has been placed under suspension. 2. Since the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, hence we finally dispose of this writ petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings. 4. The petitioner who is a medical officer of U.P. Medical & Health Services was posted as Chief Medical Superintendent, District Women Hospital, Barabanki. She was transferred on 18.09.2012 to Balrampur as Chief Medical Officer. In pursuance of the transfer order the petitioner joined at Balrampur on 20.09.2012. It has been stated in the petition that on 28.11.2012 a complaint was made by the M.L.A. Of Utraula, District Balrampur to the Health Minister, U.P. Government stating therein that the petitioner appointed several Ayurvedic Doctors and Technicians and from the time she is posted as Chief Medical Officer, Balrampur, the entire medical services have been paralysed. On the complaint of M.L.A., the Minister, Medical & Health directed the Principal Secretary of the concerned department to conduct enquiry and submit report. The Additional Director, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Devipatan Division conducted the enquiry and submitted his report on 23.05.2013. During the course of enquiry the Enquiry Officer questioned several officers and also enquired about the performance of the petitioner. The enquiry report submitted by the Additional Director was to the effect that the allegations made against the petitioner were incorrect and baseless. It was further stated in the petition that inspite of the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Director, the impugned order was passed on 04.10.2013 placing the petitioner under suspension and also setting up an enquiry into the allegations made in the complaint. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till date neither any Enquiry Officer was appointed nor charge-sheet was served upon her. 5. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that till date neither any Enquiry Officer was appointed nor charge-sheet was served upon her. 5. The learned senior counsel Shri S.K. Kalia appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2013 indicates that the petitioner was placed under suspension on the charge that while posted as Chief Medical Superintendent, District Women Hospital, Barabanki the petitioner earned properties and appointed Ayurvedic Doctors and Assistants by taking illegal gratification. The complaint sent by the M.L.A. to the Health Minister was in respect of certain appointments made by the petitioner while posted as Chief Medical Officer, Balrampur. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that the suspension order could not have been passed on the basis of the complaint made by M.L.A. Utraula, District Balrampur as there was no reference to any malpractice or illegal appointment made by her at Barabanki. Moreover, it is also not clear as to on whose complaint the disciplinary enquiry has been initiated and on whose complaint the petitioner was placed under suspension. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that the Additional Director Medical & Family Welfare, Devipatan Division conducted a detailed enquiry and questioned several officers of the department and also perused the official records, but could find nothing wrong in the performance of her work and duty. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.05.2013 clearly stating therein that none of the allegations made against the petitioner could be proved. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that the prescribed procedure provided in the Government Order dated 09.05.1997 for disposal of complaints has not been followed. Till date neither any Enquiry Officer has been appointed nor any charge-sheet is served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has throughout been an honest officer and has served the department with honesty to the satisfaction of her senior officers. It was because of her seniority and merit that she was promoted to Level-IV officer. 6. The learned standing counsel Shri Sanjay Bhasin appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand has submitted that the disciplinary enquiry was initiated on the basis of the complaint dated 13.10.2012 which has not been annexed by the petitioner. This complaint is entirely different from the complaint dated 28.11.2012, which was filed by the petitioner alongwith her writ petition. This complaint is entirely different from the complaint dated 28.11.2012, which was filed by the petitioner alongwith her writ petition. It was on the complaint dated 13.10.2012 that a decision was taken by the State Government to conduct vigilance enquiry against the petitioner. The vigilance department carried out the exercise of collecting information and submitted a report on 11.03.2013. In the said report the allegations made in the complaint dated 13.10.2012 were found prima facie proved and, therefore, a full fledged open enquiry was recommended. Since there were serious allegations against the petitioner, hence the State Government on 06.08.2013 decided for an open vigilance enquiry and directed that the petitioner be placed under suspension. It is also submitted by learned standing counsel that there is sufficient material available with the State Government to sustain the allegations made in the order of suspension. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties and has stated that from the letter dated 16/17.10.2013 issued by Additional Director, Medical & Health, Faizabad Division to Director General, Medical & Health, Lucknow, it is clear that during her posting at Barabanki from 07.02.2009 to 20.09.2012 there has been no complaint against the petitioner and no enquiry was ever conducted with regard to any of the complaint. A copy of the aforesaid letter has been filed by the petitioner alongwith her rejoinder affidavit as Annexure No. R.A. 4. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State there is a reference to a complaint dated 13.10.2012. A copy of the said complaint has not been placed by the State before this Court. The alleged enquiry report conducted by the vigilance department has also not been produced before the Court. On the contrary there is a evidence on record to show that during her posting at Barabanki neither any complaint was made against her nor any enquiry was conducted. In para 5 of the counter affidavit it has been contended that the complaint dated 13.10.2012 was made by the M.L.A., Utraula, District Balrampur making serious allegations of corruption against the petitioner. It has further been contended in para 5 of the counter affidavit that in the aforesaid complaint, there are allegations of corruption in making appointments on the post of Physiotherapy Assistant and Ayurvedic Doctors. It has further been contended in para 5 of the counter affidavit that in the aforesaid complaint, there are allegations of corruption in making appointments on the post of Physiotherapy Assistant and Ayurvedic Doctors. The learned senior counsel submits that even if there is any such complaint, the impugned suspension order is not in consonance with the said complaint as the grounds on which the petitioner was suspended, were in respect of certain appointments made by the petitioner at Barabanki. The complainant who is M.L.A. from Utraula Constituency of District Balrampur has nothing to do with what had happended during the posting of the petitioner at Barabanki. There is no complaint on record which may indicate that anyone has made complaint with regard to the alleged illegal appointments made by the petitioner while posted at Barabanki. So far as the complaint with regard to the corruption prevailing in the District Hospital, Balrampur is concerned, it is submitted that an enquiry has already been conducted by the Additional Director, Medical & Health and nothing has been found against the petitioner. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in reply to the letter issued by the Director General, Medical & Health, the Additional Director, Faizabad Division has informed that while posted at Barabanki for the period from 07.02.2009 to 20.09.2012 there was no complaint against the petitioner and no enquiry was ever conducted against her. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, it appears that the impugned suspension order has been passed without any basis. The complaint dated 28.11.2012 made by the local M.L.A. is not in respect of any work and conduct of the petitioner while posted at Barabanki. The alleged complaint dated 13.10.2012 by the M.L.A. has not been filed with the counter affidavit. Moreover, in para 5 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the complaint dated 13.10.2012 was in respect of work and conduct of the petitioner at Balrampur. In view of this the impugned suspension order appears to be misconceived and based on vague charges. The Additional Director, Medical & Health has already conducted a detailed enquiry with regard to the alleged corruption and illegal appointments made by the petitioner at Balrampur and nothing incriminating has been found against her. The alleged inquiry report submitted by the vigilance department has not been placed on record by the opposite parties. 10. The Additional Director, Medical & Health has already conducted a detailed enquiry with regard to the alleged corruption and illegal appointments made by the petitioner at Balrampur and nothing incriminating has been found against her. The alleged inquiry report submitted by the vigilance department has not been placed on record by the opposite parties. 10. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the discussions made hereinabove, we are of the view that the impugned suspension order is misconceived and is based on no evidence and it has been passed without any justification, hence the same is liable to be quashed. 11. We accordingly quash the impugned suspension order dated 04.10.2013 passed by the opposite party no. 1 and allow the writ petition to this extent only. We are not inclined to interfere with the remaining part of the impugned order. 12. Writ petition is disposed of as aforesaid without any order as to cost.