A J JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a: qualified Doctor and in the year ]971, he was working: as In-charge Medical Officer, +Sajod Primary Health Centre. That a complaint was made against him that one Shri Natvarlal, a boy aged eight years was suffering from diarrhoea and vomitting and the said boy was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Sajod, around 10-00 to 10-30 p.m. on 30/08/1971. That the petitioner- did not examine the said boy-patient and instead, asked the Sanitary Inspector to give the medicines from Epidemic Store. The petitioner did not examine the, patient though the relative of the patient suspected cholera and had informed: the petitioner accordingly. The condition of the said boy went on deteriorating and again around 3.00 aim. after mid-night, the petitioner was requested to visit thesaid boy and to examine the patient. The petitioner refused to do so and directed the Sanitary lnspector ("S.I." for short) Shri Jadav to visit the patient and: to; administer certain injection and medicines. The patient did not respond to the treatment and the relatives of the patient again went to the petitioner around 5-00 morning and repeated their request to visit and examine the patient. The petitioner refused to visit the patient and asked the boy be brought to the Centre The patient aged about eight years was brought in a bullock cart to the Centre. Yet, the petitioner did not examine him immediately and as a result thereof, boy died before the petitioner could examine him. A preliminary enquiry was held by the District Health Officer and the District Health Officer ("D.H.O." for short ) in this enquiry recorded the statements of the petitioner, S. I. Shri Jadav, Driver Shri Haridas Rana and Amrutlal Dula, peon and other persons. After receipt of the report of the preliminary enquiry, no enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Later on, enquiry was entrusted to the Anti-Corruption Bureau and on the basis of the report made by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Police, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 9/01/1975, by the Director of Health Services (Health Section), Ahmedabad. The charge framed against the petitioner reads as under :

(2.) The petitioner was subject to the enquiry on the aforesaid charge and the allegation by the Special Officer for Departmental Enquiries (Gazetted Officers), Gandhinagar and the said Special Officer submitted his report on 29/08/1979, holding that though the petitioner was called to visit the patient again and again he did not go but it is not proved that the patient died on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner and that the charge of not visiting the patient was only partially proved against the petitioner. Aforesaid report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the respondent-State by its order dated 28/03/1980, inflicted punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect. The petitioner preferred review application before the Governor of the State of Gujarat and the Review Application was rejected as per the Memo dated 25/02/1981, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-D. At that time, the petitioner was on deputation to All India Institution of Hygiene and Public Health at Calcutta. The petitioner, therefore, says that he received copy of the above memo Annexure- D of 25/02/1981, in first week of May, 1981. The petitioner being aggrieved from the order dated 28/03/1980 Annexure-B and the memo dated 2 5/02/1981 whereby his review has been rejected by the Governor of the State of Gujarat, preferred this petition before this Court.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it is contented that the Inquiry Officer had held that it was not proved that the patient died on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner and the charge of not visiting the patient is only partially proved and, therefore, punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect is unduly harsh and excessive.