C.K.K. KULDEEP KUMAR Vs. THE CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who were occupying sufficiently senior level in the hierarchy of medical profession, the first petitioner being a Senior Consultant Cardiac Surgeon and the second one a Senior Consultant Anesthesiologist, working in the respondent Co -operative hospital came to be removed from service as per Exts.P7 and P8, which in turn are under challenge in this writ petition. The case of the petitioners as projected in the writ petition is that they came to be appointed in the service of the respondent Co -operative hospital as per Exts.P1 and P2 appointment orders dated 26/02/2011 and were continuing in service allegedly without any room for complaint from any corner. But on a fine morning, they were served with Exts.P3 and P4 notices requiring them to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be taken against them. According to the petitioners, they submitted Exts.P5 and P6 explanation, which however were not acceptable to the concerned respondent, who issued Ext.P7 and P8 proceedings dated 10/10/2012 putting an end to the service of the petitioners. Petitioners have preferred Ext.P9 and P10 representations before the fourth respondent pointing out the actual facts and figures and they have approached this Court seeking for immediate intervention.

(2.) GOING by the sequence of events, it is seen that serious insinuations have been made against the petitioners, particularly as to the alleged involvement in the strike and the refusal to perform surgery on the concerned patients constituting grade misconduct, leading to serious adverse circumstances. Even according to the petitioners, as borne by Exts.P5 and P6 reply, the fact remains that the non -performance of the already scheduled surgery to be conducted on 4/10/2012 stands conceded. But their version is that, they had informed the position to the Vice -Chairman of the hospital over telephone. Yet another aspect to be noted is the nature of engagement of the petitioners, on 'contract basis', for a period of one year, which is over. By virtue of their nature of engagement and profession, they are having a pivotal role and have a social obligation, in performing their duties. They were appointed by the respondent Co -operative hospital as per Exts.P1 and P2 appointment orders on contract basis for a period of one year to be effective from 05/03/2011 and 1.3.2011 respectively. The terms and conditions of the appointment were also clearly mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2, agreeing for the minimum remuneration of Rs. four lakhs per month (plus 3.5% procedural charges) and three lakhs per month (plus 3% procedural charges) respectively. It was also specified and agreed that one month's notice was enough on either side, to put an end to the engagement, in lieu of which, salary for one month was stipulated to be paid, if there was a failure on the part of the respondent hospital. If there is a wrongful termination from the service, it is for the petitioners to pursue the matter by approaching the proper Forum/authorities for appropriate reliefs. Whether they are entitled to have such relief, the appointment being purely contractual as borne by Exts.P1 and P2, is a matter to be considered by the appropriate authority, if any such proceedings come to be filed in the due course, with regard to which, this Court does not propose to comment anything. This is not a matter to be dealt with by this Court, invoking the extra ordinary/discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed.