RAVI DUTT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 5/8/1985, passed by the State of Rajasthan through the Special Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Jaipur by which a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner and, in addition to this penalty, denial of salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid, has also been imposed on the petitioner by the said order.

(2.) THE circumstances which led to the passing of the aforesaid order are enumerated herein as follows: While the petitioner was holding the post of Incharge, Government Hospital, Badnagar, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of one Smt. Kiran Devi and gave a report that the cause of death of Smt. Kiran Devi was suffocation due to smoke. During the investigation of death of Smt. Kiran Devi, the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur considered it necessary to obtain the opinion of the Medical Board about the cause of death of Smt. Kiran Devi and on the request of the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur the Superintendent of SMS, Jaipur constituted a Medical Board of three Doctors who found fault with the post-mortem examination conducted by the petitioner, who gave its report on 6/3/1982. As result of this report, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the Secretary to the Government, Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 11/3/1982, which was confirmed by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms vide the order dated 7/5/1982. Accordingly, memorandum under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "cca Rules") was issued against the petitioner proposing disciplinary enquiry against him under the aforesaid Rules. THE Memorandum incorporated two charges against the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the petitioner while working as Medical Officer Incharge, Government Hospital, Badnagar on 6/1/1982 conducted a post-mortem on the dead body of one Smt. Kiran Devi at his own level and, while conducting such post-mortem indulged into serious irregularities and also violated the orders of his superior officer. THE second charge in the memorandum was that the petitioner, Dr. Sharma while working at Badnagar seized viscera of the deceased Smt. Kiran Devi and did not send the clothes of the deceased for chemical examination and, thus, kept the cause of death under suspicion. THE charge-sheet was supplemented with the statement of allegation relating to the two charges.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, Shri N. K. Maloo, countered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and made detailed submissions, which in substance are to the effect that the Disciplinary Authority committed no error by disagreeing with the report of he Enquiry Officer which was based on the advice of the Medical Board. I have, however, refrained myself from entering into Analysis of the arguments and counter arguments advanced on behalf of the parties in so far as the merit of the findings given on the charges are concerned and I propose to start with the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority in so far as the charges are concerned. A perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority clearly indicates that the petitioner has been exonerated of the principal charges which were levelled against him and, even the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the enquiry report on the same. The Disciplinary Authority, however, went into the scrutiny of the off-shoot of the charges and held that the petitioner ought to have preserved the clothes of the deceased and also should have preserved the uterus of the deceased, which ought to have been sent for chemical examination and, further went to the extent of recording that in the cases of burns regarding a lady who has died only after a few months or a few years of marriage, should have been taken special care to conduct the post-mortem. But even so, the Disciplinary Authority did not come out with the categorical findings on these questions and inferred that these charges are only partially proved to the extent of analysis of the evidence.