PREM KUMARI Vs. S C JIAN PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Prem Kumari, the petitioner herein was working as a Ward Aya in R.B.T. B. Hospital, Kingsway Camp, Delhi under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. She was served with a charge that while working as Aya in R.B.T.B. Hospital during the period 1974-75, she failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty as much as she indulged in trade/business of private medical practice without permission of the competent authority. In her reply she denied the charge. The Deputy Director of Enquiries was appointed as Enquiry Officer to go into the charge. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the penultimate para the Enquiry Officer observed that the prosecution could not prove whether the amount received by the respondent was in lieu of services rendered by her or was ex-gratia. The charge and the allegations stood proved in view of the admission of the respondent through her reply to the charge sheet and also in view of non-rebuttal of prosecution evidence by her. Under these circumstances he held that the charge was proved as framed against her.

(2.) The petitioner received a notice from the Commissioner as to why the punishment of dismissal be not inflicted on her. She replied to the notice raising various contentions such as she never admitted in the reply to the charge sheet that she was doing private practice as Aya as trade/business, with profit motive. She also stated that she was not conversant with the Enquiry Proceedings and did not know that she should have cross-examined the withnesses and also produced her defence. No opportunity was given to her to underst and the procedure neither was she allowed to engage her defence assistant. Even the list of prosecution witnesses and documents was not supplied to her. It was beyond her capacity to defend herself without some legal aid. If she could not cross-examine the witnesses, the learned Enquiry Officer was bound to cross-examine the witnesses on her behalf. She wanted to ask few questions from the complainant, Shri Khiya Ram but he posed himself before the Enquiry Officer as a dumb man and as such she could not expose him. His pre- recorded statement was produced before the Enquiry Officer which could not be read as a piece of evidence against her.

(3.) The Commissioner, after considering the reply filed by the petitioner imposed the penalty of dismissal from service.