PARAS NATH CHATURVEDI HARKHALI CHATURVEDI Vs. ADDL DIRECTOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. By the consent of the parties the writ petition is decided in view of Second Proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952. In this petition prayer has been made Id quash the order dated 22.11.1999 passed by Chief Medical Superintendent, Allahabad compulsory retiring the petitioner from service. According to the petitioner, lie was initially appointed on 8.1.1968 in M.I). Eye Hospital, Allahabad as a Choukidar and thereafter he was transferred to Government T.B. Hospital (Telierganj),Allahabad as a ward boy, where the petitioner was confirmed on 12.10.1983 with effect from 1.1.1983 by Chief Medical Superintendent, Allahabad. The demand of the petitioner made in the year 1984 from Additional Director, Medical Health & family Welfare Division, Allahabad was accepted and the direction was issued to Chief Medical Superintendent for issuance of uniform and dress but the Chief Medical Superintendent was having a grudge as the domestic service was not being provided to him therefore, direction for issuance of uniform and dresses were not allowed. The respondent No. 2 became annoyed for which the petitioner had also made complaint of Chief Medical Superintendent. The respondent No. 2 passed an order of compulsory retirement without obtaining screening committee and without any material and without any complaint available in the service record. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner to the best belief and knowledge of the petitioner that there was no adverse material in the service record of the petitioner and the work and conduct of the petitioner was always found satisfactory, however, without affording opportunity of hearing, behind his back, malafidely, the respondent No. 2, the Chief Superintendent has passed an order of compulsory retirement without assigning any reason or by non speaking order. The said compulsory retirement is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the principle of natural justice and is not in the public interest..

(2.) The counter affidavit has been filed by the Chief Medical Superintendent and it has been asserted that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory throughout. A chart showing the unsatisfactory work and behaviour will clearly prove that the petitioner is not fit for retaining in service. He has become liability on the medical department. The chart showing enclosure as Annexure CA-1 reveals that there were seventeen adverse materials recorded in the service book and personal file in respect of misbehaviour and mandatory penalty imposed, warnings, unsatisfactory extension of leave, incident of disobedience, dereliction of duty and making absence from duty without prior permission and information, misbehaviour with his superior doctors It has also been indicated in para 7 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was working previously in Eye Hospital where he was punished several times, for his negligence and disobedience and even he was transferred from Eye Hospital to Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad then to T.B. Hospital as a ward boy on administrative ground. The petitioner was also punished on 20.7.1971 for misbehavouring to the Dr. D.B. Chandra while posted in Eye Hospital. He was again punished on 14.9.1974 and 18.4.1974 by the Superintendent of Eye Hospital, Allahabad and for negligence of duty he was again punished by the Superintendent of Govt. T.B. Hospital, Allahabad. The petitioner was found misbehaving frequently with his officials, senior staff and doctor in previous years for which he was awarded punishment. The punishment awarded on 21.3.1980 and warnings given on 20.3.! 997. 3.4.1997, 3.11.97, 3.6.1998 and 24.9.1999 in respect of misbehaviour with the hospital officials and dereliction of duties were recorded in the service book. Even the show cause notice was not replied by the petitioner On many occasions the petitioner was found absent and warnings were given to him on 30.3.1999. On 22.5.1999 for absence from duty, even salary of the petitioner was stopped by the Superintendent of the hospital

(3.) According to the petitioner the compulsory retirement should not be passed by way of punitive measure in the light of 2001 (2) A.W.C. 1445 (SC) (M.P. Electricity Board v. Since Baboo). In the case of Since Baboo there was no material at all in the service record for compulsory retirement, whereas, in the present case as contended by the respondents large number of adverse remarks are available and different suggestive warnings are also available in the service record of petitioner which was indicated to improve and reform the functioning of the petitioner. The fundamental rules provides for compulsory retirement are in the interest of public service and in the present case retiring the petitioner in public interest is not illegal in view of (Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40; (1971) 1 SCR 791).