LAWS(P&H)-1994-2-133

THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DR. VED BHUSHAN

Decided On February 22, 1994
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
Ved Bhushan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This State appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition 7896 of 1989 whereby the order dated June 6,1989 pre-maturely retiring the respondent from service has been quashed and he has been held to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The respondent Dr. Ved Bhushan (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') joined the Punjab Civil Medical Service (P.C.M.S.) Class II on January 1, 1964 and was thereafter promoted to PCMS Class I, on July 29,1979. During the year 1980-81, the petitioner was working under the direct control of the then Civil Surgeon, Bhatinda who as the reporting officer recorded the following adverse remarks on the work and conduct of the petitioner: "2. Ability a) Leadership : Poor leadership and initiative & b) Initiative tact. c) Tact. 3. Has he a good reputation for honesty : Honesty doubtful i) in dealing with in any present post medical reimbursement bills to Govt, employees. ii) in issuing of certificates of sickness to relatives of prisoners. iii) embezzlement of Govt, funds by claiming double T.A. Bills. Misuse of Medical AMA Part i)Matter has been enquired by Govt. and report under investigation by Joint Director Dr. Amarjit Singh. ii) Enquiry being conducted by Addl. Deputy Commissioner regarding issue of false certificates to relatives of prisoner. Temp, embezzlement of Govt, money, iii) Claimed doubled TA. Bill on 16.7.80 and 1.6.81 T.A. Bill to Mansa for Rs.60/- claimed twice. 4. Have the defects reproted been already : Yes, he does not obey order of brought to any other connection to the Civil Surgeon and D.H.S. notice of the officer concerned 5. General Assessment of work done vis-a- : Taken very little interest in F.P. vis Family Planning Programme. Programme. 6. Assessment of inclination towards : No inclination as team leader and community Health programms like F.P. motivator. Programme. 7. Remarks about work done to achieve the : Very poor performance in achieving F.P. target fixed by the State. trarget allotted to Civil Hospital, Bhatinda only 32% as comparted to 108% of District achieved."

(3.) While challenging the aforesaid order what was urged before the learned Judge was that apart from the adverse remarks for the year 1980-81, the service record of the petitioner was blotless and that he worked with utmost integrity and devotion to duty. As regards the adverse entry for the year 1980-81 it was submitted that the reporting officer had given three reasons for doubting the honesty and integrity of the petitioner, namely, he was not honest (i) in dealing with the medical reimbursement bills to Government employees; (ii) in issuing certificates of sickness to relatives of prisoners, (iii) embezzled government funds by claiming double T.A. bills. The case of the petitioner was that as regards the first reason mentioned by the reporting officer, the matter of issuing false prescription slips to government employees for claiming medial reimbursement formed the subject matter of a First Information Report lodged by the Chief Engineer, Thermal Plant, Bhatinda on the basis of which he was tried by a criminal court under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code but was acquitted. The other two reasons mentioned in the report for the year 1980-81 were, according to the petitioner, also without any basis as the charges relating thereto were the subject matter of departmental enquiries in which the petitioner was completely exonerated. The argument before the learned Single Judge was that since all the three grounds mentioned by the reporting officer for doubting the integrity of the petitioner for the year 1980-81 had been found not to exist, the very basis of the adverse entry stood knocked off and there being no other adverse material on the record, the order of premature retirement could not be sustained. This contention found favour with the learned single Judge and the impugned order was consequently quashed. Hence the present appeal.