GAJINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition purports to have been filed in public interests and prays for the following reliefs:

(2.) The genesis of the problem appears to lie in a complaint which the petitioner and few others working in the Medical Council of India lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging malfunctioning, irregularities and corruption in the working of the MCI. A preliminary inquiry appears to have been conducted by the CBI culminating in a report dated 8th March, 2007 which was submitted to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi recommending regular departmental action for imposition of major penalties against Dr. A.R.N. Setalwad, Secretary of MCI, Ms. S. Savitha, Section Officer, Mr. Manoj Kumar, LDC, Dr. K.K. Arora, Deputy Secretary MCI, Dr. D.K. Sharma and Dr. Ved Prakash Mishra, Members of the MCI. Enclosed with the recommendations was a draft statement of article of charges, draft statement of imputation of misconduct and the calendar of evidence oral and documentary for initiating appropriate departmental proceedings against the officers mentioned above. While the recommendations were still in process, an incident is alleged to have taken place on 2nd March 2007 in which the petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved and used abusive language in the office while on duty. By an order dated 6th March 2007, the Executive Committee of MCI while taking cognizance of the alleged misbehaviour of the petitioner decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and also to place him under suspension with immediate effect. That provided to the petitioner the provocation to file the present writ petition inter alia alleging that the MCI had not despite recommendations made by the CBI in its report referred to above, initiated any departmental inquiry against the officers whom the CBI had prima facie found to be guilty of misconduct. The petitioner's further grievance was that in the light of the recommendations made by the CBI, the officers aforementioned should not be allowed to function and handle the affairs of MCI and that they should be placed under suspension. A further writ restraining the Secretary MCI from acting as disciplinary authority of any one of the employees who had complained against him before the CBI has also been prayed for.

(3.) Appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Amita Gupta strenuously argued that although the CBI had made recommendations as early as in March 2007, the MCI had not taken any action against the officers by initiating regular departmental inquiry against them. She urged that the inaction on the part of the MCI in initiating appropriate action against those found prima facie blameworthy was malafide and called for intervention of this Court in public interest to rid the system of bribery and corruption that was according to the learned counsel rampant in the MCI. She further argued that while the petitioner had been placed under suspension on a frivolous and concocted charge of using abusive language in presence of his superiors, the officers who were found prima facie blameworthy by the CBI had not been similarly dealt with. She contended that officers who have been found guilty of misconduct that called for departmental action against them, ought to have been placed under suspension not only to ensure that the inquiry against them was fair and unaffected by any interference, but also to prevent the officers from doing any further mischief while discharging their official functions.