ARUN KUMAR SOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was initially appointed as lecturer in State Medical College. Meerut, while posted as Professor was charge-sheeted for certain misconduct which enquiry culminated in dismissal of his services. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The charge-sheet dated 27.7.1999 has been brought on record which contains four charges. The first charge relates to the violation of the transfer order wherein the petitioner was transferred from Meerut Medical College to Medical College. Jhansi, vide order dated 4/5.6.1997. which order he deliberately avoided to receive but in the meantime, obtained an interim order staying the operation of the transfer order, which writ petition was dismissed on 5.3.1998 and, therefore, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 18.4.1998 that he should comply with the transfer orders which have become effective but the petitioner did not comply with the same despite letter dated 19.4.1998 sent by the Principal of the Medical College, Meerut, to the petitioner. The second charge related to the private practice being done by the petitioner in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Sarkari Doctor (Allopathy) Private Practice Par Nibandhan Niyamawali. 1990. The third charge related to the refusal of the petitioner from receiving the letter of the Principal, Medical College. Meerut and not receiving the Government orders. The fourth charge relates to his unauthorized absence and despite this, making his signatures on the attendance register and taking away the attendance register along with him. The charge-sheet indicated the documents and the evidence sought to be relied upon against the petitioner which included the letters dated 3.7.1997. 3.9.1997. 11.9.1997, 9.5.1998 and 19.4.1998 written by Dr. (Smt.) Usha Sharma. Principal, Medical College, Meerut.

(2.) Apart from the aforesaid evidence, other documentary evidence with respect to the charges including various publications in the newspapers, certain prescriptions which indicated charging of fee from the patients and the letter of the District Magistrate asserting that after enquiry it has been found that the petitioner was indulging in private practice were also on record. Dr. (Smt.) Usha Sharma, Principal, Medical College. Meerut was appointed as enquiry officer.

(3.) On receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner appears to have made a representation to the Secretary, Medical Education and Training. Government of U. P., Lucknow raising his grievance against the appointment of Dr. (Smt.) Usha Sharma as enquiry officer, as various letters written by her were shown as piece of evidence against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. As a consequence of the representation being made by the petitioner, the petitioner by means of letter dated 15.8.1999 wrote to the enquiry officer that he would submit his reply only when he receives an answer from the higher authorities. The enquiry officer by means of the letter dated 31.8.1999 requested the petitioner to submit his reply, as despite time being granted no reply has been submitted nor the enquiry officer has been informed about any order in response to his representation made to the higher authorities. The enquiry officer, in these circumstances, requested the petitioner to submit his reply within a week failing which it would be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter and the enquiry report shall be submitted to the State Government. The petitioner again by means of letter dated 6.9.1999 refused to honour the request of the enquiry officer and to the contrary, he specifically mentioned that the enquiry officer was free to derive any inference in view of his reply and the enquiry officer was also independent and free to submit ex parte report. Since the enquiry officer was not given any direction for not holding the enquiry and no directions were issued by the higher authorities in response to the alleged letters sent by the petitioner to the Government, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted the report dated 16.10.1999. A perusal of the enquiry report dated 16.10.1999 indicates that the enquiry officer has dealt with the objection of the petitioner regarding her appointment as enquiry officer and has also furnished a copy of the order by means of which she was appointed enquiry officer of the petitioner. The enquiry officer has also taken into consideration that despite opportunity being given and there being no order from the higher authorities for not proceeding with the enquiry, the enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry after full knowledge and service of the proceedings upon the petitioner. The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was guilty of disobedience of the transfer order and he stayed at Meerut despite dismissal of the writ petition and his relieving from Medical College, Meerut, for which she also relied upon the letter dated 19.4.1998 written by her as Principal, Medical College, Meerut, to the Director General, Medical Education and Training, U. P.