RAJESH KAROL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a medical doctor having a decree in MBBS with post graduate diploma in Dermatology and Venerology. The petitioner has been working with the respondent Employee State Insurance Corporation since 1980. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he challenges the order dated 20th November 2003 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in O.A. No.1887/2002, whereby his aforesaid O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal.

(2.) The petitioner had approached the Tribunal to challenge the order dated 16.7.2001 whereby the penalty of reduction of his pay by two stages in the present scale of pay was imposed upon the petitioner. The reduction was to remain for 2 years during which period, the pay of the petitioner was to remain constant at the reduced rates. It was further directed that the penalty will have cumulative effect. The petitioner also challenged the order whereby his departmental appeal was dismissed on 30th October 2001 and the order dated 4.9.2001 whereby recovery of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) from 6.4.1999 to 30.6.1999 was affected.

(3.) The petitioner was charge sheeted on the charge that while functioning as Chief Medical Officer, IGEIS Hospital, he had indulged in private practice at a Shop at Swati Complex, A-9, Acharya Niketan, Main Patpar Ganj, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, (hereinafter called the Clinic). By his said conduct he had violated Rule 15(1) of the CCS (Conduct Rules) 1964, which were applicable to the employee of the Corporation by virtue of Regulation 23 of the Employee State Insurance Corporation (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1959. The inquiry officer was appointed who in his inquiry report exonerated the petitioner. However, the Disciplinary Authority prima-facie did not agree with the findings of the inquiry officer. The petitioner was provided the inquiry report along with the note of disagreement, to which he filed his representation. After considering the same, the aforesaid penalty order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The departmental appeal of the petitioner was also rejected.