UMESH S. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner substantively holding the post of Additional Drugs Controller, is functioning as Incharge Drugs Controller. In the light of deaths of five women (maternity fatalities) and other associated lapses, he came to be placed under suspension vide order dtd. 2/12/2024, which he has called in question in Application No.5480/2024. The Tribunal having not granted interim protection, he is grieving before the Writ Court.

(2.) Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that his client, despite paucity of working hands, has done all that is necessary of him and therefore, no lapse can be laid at his threshold; the allegation that he failed to issue a Circular not to use 22 batches of drugs out of 192 till after their Test Report comes, is apparently incorrect; so also is the allegation that he failed to institute legal proceedings against M/s Paschim Banga Pharmaceutical Limited which had supplied 22 batches of drugs that are found to be substandard; there is absolutely no material to associate the Petitioner to the circumstances that resulted into four mortalities; there is no prima facie evidence warranting suspension; he took us to the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to show which officer does what in the statutory scheme and that his client does not have much role in the matter; even otherwise, suspension order is bad & unsustainable; at times, suspension is more stigmatic than dismissal itself; that being the position, the Tribunal ought to have granted reprieve to the Petitioner. He also tells us that more often than not, Tribunals are not granting interim protection even in worthy cases of suspension and therefore, this court should intervene to accord one. He pressed into service a decision of a Coordinate Bench decision of this Court in support of his submission.

(3.) Learned AAG appearing for the Respondent having filed copies of certain documents along with a Memo and furnished some copies from the concerned file vehemently opposed the Petition contending: maternity related death of five women is a very serious matter and none other than Hon'ble Chief Minister is looking into the same; apparently, there are lapses attributable to him in the incident; there is sufficient material on record that justifies suspension of the Petitioner; suspension is in contemplation of enquiry; the said enquiry would be accomplished before long; worthy suspensions enhance level of accountability in public administration; ordinarily, in what cases interim relief needs to be granted is a matter pertaining to the domain of Tribunal. A Writ Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 cannot undertake a deeper examination of the matter, which is still pending consideration on the file of Tribunal. So contending, he sought for the dismissal of Writ Petition.