KANTA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.6.1997 passed by Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Health Department, Chandigarh-respondent No. 1, whereby 50% cut on the family pension, was imposed. Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to make payment of arrears of pension, family pension, Gratuity, Provident Fund, leave encashment and Group Insurance money with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is a widow of late Dr. M.G. Gupta, who joined as an Assistant Surgeon, Class II on 25.1.1952 in the Punjab Health Department. He was confirmed on the said post on 25.1.1954. He joined as Medical Officer, PCMS Class-II, on 7.12.1960 through the Punjab Public Service Commission. On re-organisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab on 1st November, 1996, the services of the petitioner's husband were allocated to the State of Haryana and thus, he became a member of HCMS, Class II and he was confirmed as Medical Officer in the State of Haryana with effect from 1.11.1966. In the month of March, 1977, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") levelling allegations therein that he opened a Nursing Home and was carrying on his private practice. The husband of the petitioner, on attaining the age of 50 years, served three months' notice on 7.11.1978 under Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana. The period of notice expired on 8.2.1979 and he automatically stood retired from service from that date i.e. 8.2.1979. The husband of the petitioner Dr. M.G. Gupta met his edge of doom on 10.5.1987. However, impugned order was passed, whereby 50% cut was imposed on family pension of the petitioner vide order dated 30.6.1997. This order has been challenged by the widow of deceased Dr. M.G. Gupta through the writ petition in hand.

(3.) Written statement has been filed by the respondents by virtue of which it was pointed out that a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Rules was served upon the husband of the petitioner. On an inquiry being conducted, a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer mentioning therein that the husband of the petitioner had been doing private practice outside B.K. Hospital, Faridabad in contravention of Government Instructions. He was not entitled to do private practice after 1.2.1972. The husband of the petitioner has established a Nursing Home under the name and style of "Gupta Nursing Home" for doing private medical service, which was banned by the Government with effect from 1.2.1972. This act of the husband of the petitioner was in violation of the Government instructions and against the provisions of Service Rules and law. On the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, it was decided to dismiss the husband of the petitioner from service. It has been further averred in the written statement that a show cause notice for dismissal from service was served upon the husband of the petitioner, which was challenged by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 2092 of 1986, wherein stay was granted by this Court against the operation of the show cause notice vide order dated 11.5.1982 and ultimately, the aforementioned writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 29.12.1996. Against the order of dismissal, Letters Patent Appeal No. 111 of 1997 was filed, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.12.1996 passed by this Court. Meaning thereby that, the husband of the petitioner could have been dismissed from service and no right of pension/Gratuity could have accrued to him, but for his demise, that punishment could not be awarded. It has been further maintained in the written statement that taking a lenient view in the matter, 50% cut on his pensionary benefit was ordered to be made. It is finally prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.