DR GOPALKRISHNA K SALELKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer made by Dr. G. K. Salelkar, the petitioner, is for quashing the order dated 15th of June 1968 by which the Government of Goa, Daman - and Diu terminated his services by giving him one month's notice in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'.

(2.) The petitioner, who is undoubtedly highly qualified in his profession, was appointed as a temporary lecturer in Medicine in the Goa Medical College, an institution owned by the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, on 15th of March 1966. Subsequently, on 18th of August 1967, he was posted as Assistant Professor of Medicine in the same college and it was mentioned in the relevant order that his appointment to the new post was "purely provisional and liable to termination when U. P. S. C. nominee becomes available." In the impugned order dated 15th of June 1968 it is said that "his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him." It is also mentioned in that order that the notice had been served pursuant to sub-rule (1) of R. 5 of the Rules. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order dated 15th of June 1968 is not as innocuous as it purports to be and that its real nature is of removing him from service by way of punishment on the assumption that he had been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his functions as a public servant. His removal from service, the petitioner adds, is void and inoperative, having been effected in violation of the constitutional provisions enacted in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. He also assails the validity of the order on the footing that it is mala fide and that it had been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and of fair play. Major part of the petition is comprised of the facts relating to the death of one Vithal Talankar on 8th November 1967 in the hospital at Ribandar. The petitioner alleges that his dismissal is directly connected with that tragic occurrence and that the Government had reached the conclusion, based on the report of a committee which conducted the inquiry ex parte, that he had been guilty of negligence in the matter of treating Vithal "Talankar.

(3.) Dr. Salelkar narrates in the petition the facts relevant to the admission and treatment of the patient Vithal right from the 5th of November 1967 upto 8th of the same month when Vithal expired at about 11-00 P. M., and denies that he had been guilty of any negligence in the matter of his treatment. His difficulties, he asserts, arose out of the facts that the patient was an employee of Shri Damodar Kashinath Naik, the treasurer of Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, that this Gomantak Party is the ruling party in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu, that Shri Damodar K. Naik felt that the patient had not been properly looked after and treated in the hospital, that he consequently lodged a complaint with the Chief Minister of the Union Territory, and that the 'Chief Minister asked the, Dean of the hospital to hold an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of the patient Vithal. The Dean appointed a committee comprising of three professors of the college and the committee examined a large number of witnesses as also the petitioner. Before that committee had submitted its report, it is the assertion of the petitioner, Shri Damodar K. Naik succeeded in persuading the Chief Minister to appoint another committee with a nominee of the relations of the patient as one of its members. The Chief Minister, therefore, appointed another committee with such a nominee as one of its members. This second committee also took the statements of a large number of witnesses including the petitioner and after putting in labours extending over two months it submitted its report to the Government. The petitioner, it is complained, was not permitted to cross- examine the witnesses produced before either of the two committees and that his services were terminated on the basis of investigations held ex parte. It is the assertion of the petitioner that though apparently the order dated 15th of June 1968 mentions that his services have been put an end to under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules but "in fact and in substance" he has been dismissed for the assumed misconduct on the basis of reports of ex parte inquiries held against him. He, therefore, alleges that it is a case of dismissal or removal from service by way of punishment and as such the violation of constitutional guarantee provided by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution makes the order dated 15th of June 1968 void, invalid, and inoperative. It is also the allegation of the petitioner that the aforementioned order is mala fide, having been passed as a result of influence exercised by Shri Damodar K. Naik on the Chief Minister.