TARLOK CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the writ petition lie in a very narrow compass and may thus be noted. The petitioner joined civil service on 13.6.1972 as a driver in the National Highway Division, Amritsar. His services were to be regularised on the production of a certificate of medical fitness. The petitioner was working in Amritsar before 18th of March, 1982 when he was transferred to Batala. According to the State, the petitioner was transferred to Batala only for a period of three days but according to the petitioner it was not so. This fact would not matter as he was medically examined at Gurdaspur and decided medically fit by the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur on 24.5.1982 as would be evident from the intimation sent in this connection vide Annexure P. 3. According to the petitioner, he had been performing his duties as driver diligently. His services have admittedly been terminated vide Annexure P. 9, on the ground that he was medically examined by the Civil Surgeon Amritsar, on 18.3.1982 and was found to be 'coloured blind'. This is a dispute between the petitioner and the State whether the employee was actually 'colour blind' or not.

(2.) The termination of services had been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that he was not colour blind and that he having been sent on deputation to Gurdaspur, he was actually examined on 24.5.1982 and was found to be fit as has been noticed above. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that he was never found to be medically unfit as has been projected by the State in Annexure P. 9. The petitioner has submitted before the Court that he is prepared to be examined by the Medical Board regarding the allegation of the Executive Engineer whether he was colour blind or not. On perusal of the entire record, it has become apparent that the certificate of unfitness dated 18.3.1982 is doubtful as regards its correctness. The State Counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the petitioner was not only colour blind but he has also suppressed material facts by giving a declaration that he was not medically examined earlier.

(3.) after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and on perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Annexure P. 9, the order of termination, having been passed on 10.8.1987 on the basis of medical examination having been conducted on 18.3.1982, that is, after the lapse of more than five years should not in my opinion, be allowed to stand particularly when the petitioner, according to his version, has got another medical certificate regarding his colour blindness from the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur. It is surprising that the Executive Engineer, National Highway Works Division, Amritsar, took more than five years to pass that order of termination of services of the petitioner. If the petitioner was really coloured blind, it is not understandable as to why the safety of the Officials/Officers travelling in the official car should have been allowed to remain in danger for such a long time. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Works Division, Amritsar vide Annexure P. 8 had written to the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh, stating that the petitioner was medical unfit on account of colour blindness and that the petitioner, when he was on deputation got issued a decket from the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur for medical examination who declared him medically fit. The letter further shows that the medical examination of the Driver was requested to be arranged by a Medical Board and that in this connection certain reminders starting from 1985 upto 1987 were mentioned in the letter Annexure P. 8. Instead of arranging medical examination by a Medical Board, the Executive Engineer passed order of termination of services. The Executive Engineer could have requested the higher authorities for the medical examination of the petitioner or might have pressed the Director more but could not have passed the termination of services. In view thereof, the medical examination conducted in the year 1982 could not, in my view, be a legal ground to terminate the services of the petitioner particularly when the Executive Engineer himself was of the view that the petitioner should be examined by a Medical Board. The argument of the counsel for the State that the petitioner gave a false declaration and then arranged his medical examination has been explained by the counsel for the petitioner that the declaration was signed only in a mechanical manner without understanding its implication. Without going into the weight of the above mentioned submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be examined by a Medical Board. This, in my view, would be the only solution to the problem when the parties have crossed swords on a point of fact. If the petitioner was a colour blind in the year 1982, he would not become alright in the year 1989. No medical opinion has been brought on the record of the case and none has been pressed into service at the time of argument that a person who is colour blind at one stage may have the ailment cured. In view thereof, till the petitioner was medically examined by a Medical Board as was contemplated even by the Department, his services could not have been terminated and that too without affording him an opportunity of hearing.