VINOD KUMAR KHATOR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to produce the entire proceedings of seizure and locking of the clinic/premises of the petitioner by respondent No.3 on 30.7.2013. It is further prayed that it be declared that respondents No. 2 & 3 had no jurisdiction and authority to lock the premises of the petitioner and the same be directed to be unlocked forthwith. The petitioner has also prayed for compensation for the aforesaid unauthorized and illegal act of locking the premises/clinic of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Radiologist and working as Medical Officer in District Hospital Morar. It is contended that the petitioner is not receiving non-practicing allowance (NPA) and, therefore, is entitled to do private practice in the capacity of Medical Officer. The petitioner has built up a house in Char Sahar Ka Naka Road, Hazira, Gwalior. In the part of the above house the petitioner is running a medical consultancy chamber. It is contended that the petitioner used to sit in the said chamber after working hours from his employment and give advice to his patients. It is contended that the petitioner was on leave between 23.7.2013 to 7.8.2013. On 30.7.2013 the respondent No.3 (Naib Tehsildar) along with Dr. A.P.Shrivastava and police personnel visited his clinic, conducted videography inside his consultancy chamber and then the said chamber was locked. It is contended that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity, nor the team which conducted the said inspection showed any authority letter to the petitioner.

(3.) PER contra, Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate, supported the action. She placed heavy reliance on para 11 and 12 of the return. It is contended that the petitioner being a Government employee was obliged to see patients during working hours in the Government hospital, whereas he was absent and during working hours was giving consultancy in his private chamber. Petitioner is already charge sheeted for this misconduct. She submits that it is a serious misconduct and, therefore, the department is not precluded from taking action against the petitioner. It is submitted that the action was taken in good faith with a view to ensure that the Government doctor provides treatment to the patients during working hours in Government hospital. She placed reliance on Section 13 of the Adhiniyam to submit that no suit or review proceedings will lie against the Government for any action which is conducted in good faith. In addition, a preliminary objection was taken that the petitioner can prefer an appeal under Rule 20 of the said rules. It is also contended that the petitioner was running a commercial activity from the said clinic which was seized and, therefore, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents.