ANANTRAI L VADNAGRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 2.5.94 passed against the petitioner by the Health & Family Welfare Department by the order of Governor under the signatures of the Deputy Secretary whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed against the petitioner on the basis of an inquiry held against him. This order dt.2.5.94 also finds mention in the office order (communication) dt. 9.5.94, a copy of which was sent to the petitioner by the Chief Insurance Medical Officer, Class-I, Employees State Insurance Scheme, D1, Rajkot. The petitioner, holding the qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery, was initially appointed as Insurance Medical Officer on 17.10.66. He was promoted as Insurance Medical Officer, Class II in May 1976. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner alongwith the Memo dated 28.4.87 and the petitioner was subjected to an inquiry on the basis of the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet contain 17 charges in all with regard to the irregularities in the Certificates issued to different insured employees as also discrepancies in the duplicate copies of such Certificates and further allegations against the petitioner for making attempt to destroy the relevant records. The petitioner's case is that he had filed a detailed reply denying the charges through his interim reply dt.9.5.87. It is also the petitioner's case that he had moved applications dt. 7.5.87, 18.5.87, 10.6.87 followed by the letter dt.27.4.89 whereby he demanded the copies of certain documents mentioned in these letters, but the same were not supplied to him despite his repeated requests, as aforesaid. Ofcourse few documents were supplied to him on 21.11.89 but even while doing so the copies of about 12 Medical case papers were not supplied to him nor the copies of the Certificate Book, Accident Forms, Reference Forms etc. were given to him. The petitioner has also raised the grievance that on 4.12.89 he again made representation to the Director, E.S.I. pointing out therein that he had not been supplied with the documents and the Inquiry Officer was proceeding ahead with the inquiry without affording reasonable opportunity to him to defend the case of the petitioner in the Departmental Inquiry. Copies of all these letters dt. 7.5.87, 18.5.87, 10.6.87, 27.4.89 and 4.12.89 have been placed on record. Thus, the inquiry proceeded against the petitioner while the petitioner was not supplied the copies of the documents asked for by him in the applications, as aforesaid. The Presenting Officer on behalf of the Department submitted written submissions on 16.4.91 and the petitioner also submitted written submissions on 7.5.91 before the Inquiry Officer. In para 9 of the petition, the petitioner has averred that in his written submissions, made before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner had also raised the grievance with regard to the non supply of the documents asked for by him and he also referred to the number of Paragraphs of the E.S.I. Medical Manual containing procedural instructions pointing out that as per Para 6 of the said Manual, before the issue of the Certificate, the Insurance Medical Officer has to satisfy himself about the identity of the insured patient and during the course of treatment he would ordinarily see the patient's identity card and that the Certificates were issued by the petitioner only to those insured employees who brought the identity cards and, therefore, there was no irregularity or illegality committed by the petitioner in issuing the Certificates. Reference has also been made to Paras 82, 83, 83.5, 83.8, 85, 88 and 92 of this Manual to explain that it is not necessary that the Insurance Medical Officer should call the patient every day and that he should advice him according to the needs of the case and hence the petitioner did not commit any irregularity or illegality in discharge of his duties. The written submissions dated 7.5.91 submitted by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer have also been placed on record of this Special Civil Application as Annexure 'E'.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P. and have perused the charge-sheet, the Inquiry Report and the order of punishment, as has been passed by the Health & Family Welfare Department of the Government of Gujarat and other relevant papers, copies of which have been placed on record by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, several grounds have been taken to assail the punishment order dt.2.5.94. However, I do not consider it necessary to deal with all the grounds, as have been raised. It will be sufficient to deal with two grounds, namely, (i) that the charge-sheet was given to the petitioner in the year 1987 at a belated stage while the charges relate to the year 1984, and (ii) that the petitioner has been denied a reasonable opportunity in the course of inquiry inasmuch as the documents asked for by him had not been made available to him despite his repeated requests.

(3.) Thus, the delay in starting the departmental inquiry and denial of the documents and reasonable opportunity are the two grounds, which have been seriously pressed before this Court.