R PADMAVATHY Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a Gynecologist in Government Hospital, Mettur Dam, was subjected to a departmental proceeding on the charges of demanding bribe and dereliction of duty, and on the basis of the charges proved against her, she was dismissed from service.

(2.) The charges against the appellant are that on 18.9.1995 at about 9.00 p.m. a pregnant lady by name Tmt.Boodhammal, aged 18 years, came to the Government Hospital, Mettur Dam for confinement. A staff nurse examined the case and informed the appellant over phone that the pregnancy was in advanced stage. The appellant without attending the patient immediately informed the staff nurse over phone to get ready for cesarean operation and informed the patient to make ready a sum of Rs.1500/- for purchase of materials, though the expenditure would be only about Rs.250/-. When the patient could not afford to pay the said amount, the appellant instructed the staff nurse to refer the patient to Salem for further treatment, as a result of which the patient delivered a dead baby on the road side. The second charge against the appellant was that even after the patient admission in the Mettur Dam Hospital after road side delivery, the appellant failed to give follow up treatment, and thereby she was charged of dereliction of duty. Consequently, the appellant was put under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated, in which she denied the charges and took a stand that since it was late night, she could not attend the patient and further, she never demanded any money. According to the appellant, when she received a call from the staff nurse at about 9.30 p.m. about a pregnant lady with advanced pregnancy stage, she immediately directed the staff nurse to examine the pregnant lady and to get the operation theatre ready. It was contended that in the Government Hospital, Mettur Dam the material meant for operation was not available, and therefore, the patient and his attendant was instructed to get the same from the market.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that the staff nurse and also the Doctor on duty were subjected to departmental proceeding along with the appellant. The charges framed against the appellant ware proved in the departmental enquiry and on the basis of that, she was dismissed from service.