DR. DIWAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a member of the Punjab civil Medical Service Class-I, is aggrieved by the order dated March 30, 1992 by which he was dismissed from service. He challenges this order on a number of grounds. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Member of the Punjab civil Medical Service Class-II on December 12, 1968. He was promoted to P.C.M.S.-1 on June 1, 1978. In the year 1972, the petitioner was working as Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Tanda. On August 2, 1979, he examined an injured person by the name of Pir Mohammad and submitted a Medico-legal Report to the effect that the injury had been caused by a sharp edged weapon and was grievious in nature. Later on, without conducting and X- ray examination, he declared the injury to be simple. It was alleged that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 700/- from Mohinder Singh, who had brought the injured to the Health Centre. Initially, Rs. 350/- had been paid in the presence of Pritam Singh. Later on, when Mohinder Singh did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 350/-, the petitioner had sent the revised report. The matter was investigated by the Vigilance Deptt. On June 27,1984, the petitioner was given a charge sheet. A copy of the Memorandum with which the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner has been appended as Annexure P.3 with the writ petition. A copy of the chargesheet has been produced as Annexure P.4. The statement of imputation of misconduct is contained in Annexure P.5. Ultimately on June 26,1985, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, vide order dated July 29, 1986, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.l with the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect from December 1,1984. On October 8, 1986, the enquiry against the petitioner was concluded. The charge was found to have been proved. A copy of the enquiry report has been produced as Annexure P. 23 with the writ petition.

(3.) On March 10, 1990, the Government promoted various officers as Deputy Directors. On July 31, 1991, the petitioner filed the present petition alleging that he had been wrongly ignored for promotion. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was called upon to represent against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer vide letter dated September 19,1991, a copy of which has been produced an Annexure P. 23 with the writ petition. Along with this notice, a copy of the report had also been furnished to the petitioner. He submitted his reply on October 18,1991. This was followed by a representation dated January 26, 1992 (Annexure P. 25 with the writ petition), by which the petitioner prayed for permission to permit his counsel to address arguments. This prayer was declined. On March 30, 1992, the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner amended the petition to challenge the order of dismissal.