LAWS(SC)-1983-2-15

AVTAR SINGH Vs. MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT RAJINDRA HOSPITAL PATIALA

Decided On February 17, 1983
AVTAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Medical Superintendent Rajindra Hospital Patiala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Avtar Singh is the appellant in both the appeals. State of Punjab is the respondent in both the appeals, but in C. A. No. 1560 of 1982, the Medical Superintendent, Rajindra Hospital, the Principal, government Medical College and the Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab are other respondents.

(2.) The issues in both the appeals are to some extent interrelated and therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) Appellant passed M. B. B. S. examination in 1979 and then spent one year as an intern in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. At the end of the period of internship, he was selected as House Surgeon in Surgery in the same hospital and completed one term of six months ending with 30/06/1981. On his application, he was selected for a term as House Physician. During the period he was working as House Physician, the Medical Superintendent, Rajindra Hospital served a notice dated 14/08/1981 calling upon the appellant to show cause why his service should not be terminated because his work and conduct were found not satisfactory. Thereafter the Medical Superintendent, Rajindra Hospital by his order dated 21/09/1981 discharged the appellant from service as House Physician on the ground that his conduct has been found unsatisfactory and his service was terminated with immediate effect. Appellant preferred an appeal to the 4th respondent the Director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab against the order terminating his service which was rejected as per the order dated 17/11/1981. Appellant filed a writ petition in the High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High court relying upon Rule 13-A of the relevant Rules held that the petitioner could be discharged from the post of House Physician without assigning any reason, if the conduct of the person is found to be unsatisfactory. The High court accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.