SUSHILA MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against her, or in the alternative for a direction to afford reasonable opportunity to defend herself at all stages at the said proceeding.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as the Lady Medical Officer in Grade II of the Central Health Service under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and was posted to the Posts and Telegraphs Dispensary at Cuttack with effect from 20. 5 1968, Ever since, she has been serving with utmost devotion to duty coupled with high integrity, so much so that she was commended by the Director of Postal Services and the Assistant Director General (Complaints) for effective control of medical re -imbursement claims of postal employees resulting in serving of expenditure on that account. The control exercised by her in that direction created enemies in the department. With regard to the appointment of one Pramila Moharana for the post of Nursing Orderly in 1977, she was one of the expert members of the Selection Committee. Mr. B. Narasimham, the then Director of Postal Services (East) put pressure on her for selection of the above named candidate. As she did not relent to the pressure the said official became annoyed. Her husband Dr. B. C. Mohapatra was serving as a Medical Officer in the Posts and Telegraphs Dispensary. His services were terminated on 10. 6.1973. He instituted Title Suit No. 27 of 1975 against some of the opposite parties and others in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, and obtained a decree on 10. 5. 1979 against such termination. Enormous pressure was brought on her by Mr. R, Narasimham and Mr. M. U. Khan, the then Director of Postal Services in order to persuade her husband to withdraw the civil proceeding. As she did not agree, she incurred the wrath of these high officials. The behaviour of Mr. M. U. Khan towards her was also not at all cordial as would be borne out from Annexures -22 and 23. For the above reasons, high officers of the Posts and Telegraphs Department, such as, Mr. R. Narasimham and Mr. M. U. Khan bore grudge against her. According to the existing rules, she was entitled to take medicines from the Posts and Telegraphs Dispensary for members of her family according to requirement. She took medicines in the months of May, June, July and August of the year 1977 lord treatment of herself and other members of the family according to necessity. For such action on her part a departmental proceeding was initiated against her and a charge (Annexure -1/1) with supporting materials (Annexures 1/2,1/3 and 1/4) were served on her by memorandum (Annexure -1) dated 7. 5. 1979. She submitted her written statement (Annexure -2). Opposite party No. 4 was appointed as the enquiring authority and opposite party No. 5 was appointed as the presenting officer on behalf of the department. The enquiring authority intimated her by Annexure -5 that the preliminary hearing -shall take place at New Delhi on 3. 8. 1979. But on account of her difficulties mentioned in Annexure -7, she requested him to conduct the enquiry at Cuttack. Her request was not acceded to, but instead, the preliminary hearing was posted to Calcutta. Her further representation to conduct the enquiry either at Cuttack or Bbubaneswar was also not disposed of. She requested for the documents relating to the preliminary enquiry conducted by the department as a result of which the charge was framed against her by Annexure -18, but the copies thereof were not supplied to her. As a result, she was seriously prejudiced in her defence in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, she has challenged the departmental proceeding in the writ petition on the grounds that the charge was too trivial in nature to be sustained, reasonable opportunity was denied to her for her defence and so there was violation of the principle of natural justice and in initiating the departmental proceeding, the authorities were actuated by malice and mala fides.

(3.) MR . R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following points : 1. The charge framed against the petitioner does not ex facie show misconduct according to the Central Civil Services Conduct Rules (for short 'Conduct Rules'.) Therefore, even if the facts stated in the charge are admitted, a case of misconduct cannot be made out against the petitioner. Therefore the charge brought against her according to Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (referred to as 'CCA Rules') is unsustainable. It is also too trivial in nature to be proceeded with. 2. Reasonable opportunity was denied to her to make her defence because, she was not furnished with the documents relating to the enquiry on the basis of which the charge was framed and her request to conduct the departmental enquiry in Cuttack or Bhubaneswar was not acceded to. Therefore, there was violation of the principle of natural justice. Mr. M. U. Khan, the Post Master General, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, was actuated by malice and mala fides in initiating the departmental proceeding,