Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India on 3 May, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
OA. 1232/CH/2012
(Reserved on 3.5.2013)
Chandigarh, this the day of May, 2013
CORAM:HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J)
HONBLE MR.RANBIR SINGH , MEMBER(A)
Dr. Alka Sehgal w/o Dr. Rakesh Sehgal presently posted as Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Govt. Medical College Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and R/o House No. 175, Sector 16, Chandigarh.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: ASHOK PAUL JAGGA
VERSUS
1.Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource & Development, New Delhi through its Secretary.
2.Chandigarh Administration, Department of Medical Education & Research, Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3.Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh through its Director.
4.Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahajahan Road, New Delhi 110069 through its Secretary.
5.Dr. Raj Bahadur, Director, Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: MR. DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI FOR RESPDT.NO.1.
MR. ARVIND MOUDGIL FOR RESPDTS.2, 3 & 5.
MR. B.B. SHARMA FOR RESPDT.NO.4.
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER(J):-
1. Facts in the first instance.
2. The applicant herein is presently posted as an Associate Professor (Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Govt. Medical College Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. She has applied for the invalidation of the Show Cause Notice dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure A-15) and chargesheet dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A-21) on the premise that these are altogether without any foundation and are, in fact, brought into being just in order to delay the grant of appointment to her as Professor (Obstetrics & Gynecology), the placement for which her name had been recommended by the UPSC (vide Annexure A-12).
3. In the course of the OA, the applicant has made certain allegations against Dr. Ravi Gupta. However, we are neither inclined nor competent to adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise thereof in view of the fact that he is not impleaded as a party respondent herein.
4. In order to facilitate the appropriate appreciation, we would like to extract hereunder the two articles of charge against the applicant:-
Article I Dr. Alka Sehgal, Reader/Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, while working in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh has been making false and frivolous complaints to the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi alleging irregularities relating to the appointments of Dr. Ravi Kumar Gupta as Demonstrator in Department of Anatomy in GMCH and later as Senior Lecturer. In the complaints, she alleged that Union Public Service Commission took no cognizance of the complaint made earlier vide letter dated 27.5.2009 and certain officials of Union Public Service Commission have worked in collusion with the officer mentioned above to ignore a genuine complaint and helped him to get promoted due to reasons best known to them.
By doing so, the said Dr. Alka Sehgal, Reader/Associate Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), GMCH/32, Chandigarh, has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966, rendering herself liable for disciplinary action in accordance with provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 as made applicable to the employees of Union Territory, Chandigarh..
Article II Dr. Alka Sehgal, Reader/Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh while seeking permission to visit New Zealand and Australia for personal purpose for a period from 21.11.2011 to 3.12.2011 while availing earned leave, in an affidavit solemnized on 20.9.2011 annexed to her application, affirmed and declared that no enquiry or complaint is pending against her, which was totally against the factual position and it was prima facie clear that she filed the affidavit by concealing the factual position and has committed grave misconduct on her part.
Thus, by doing so the said Dr. Alka Sehgal, Reader/Associate Professor (Obstetrics & Gynaecology), GMCH/32, Chandigarh, has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant, thereby violating the provisions of Rule 3 of the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules,1966, rendering herself liable for disciplinary action in accordance with provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules.
5. The precise grievance raised by the applicant is that the extracted articles of charge having surfaced presently, cannot validly impede the grant of appointment to her in pursuance of the UPSC recommendations dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure A-12).
6. While dubbing the subject of the articles of charge, the applicant has raised an averment that those are without any foundation and the allowance of proceedings on the basis thereof would be travesty of justice.
7. The official respondents No. 2, 3 & 5 challenged the very maintainability of the OA averring that the applicant has not even opted to respond to the Show Cause Notice/chargesheet issued to her in the relevant behalf. The further averment made in the context is that the plea presently raised may be reiterated by the applicant before the Inquiring Authority. On that premise, the official respondents reiterated the validity of the impugned Show Cause Notice and chargesheet.
8. Though respondent No. 4 (UPSC) has filed an independent counter, all that it did thereby was to concede having forwarded a communication dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure A-8) to Chandigarh Administration for taking suitable action against them. It further conceded having recommended the applicant for appointment to the relevant post while being cognizant of that communication dated 6.11.2009 (Meanwhile, the applicant applied for the post of Professor. While forwarding the application, the respondent No. 3 deliberately intimated about the letter dated 6.11.2009 where respondent No. 4 had earlier desired that Chandigarh Administration to take suitable action against the applicant. The applicant was recommended for promotion by UPSC despite its earlier letter dated 6.11.2009. (Underlining for purpose of emphasizing on relevance)
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 informed that no counter is required to be filed by the respondent represented by him as its impleadment is proforma in character.
10. No counter came to be filed on behalf of respondents no. 5 & 6.
11. It was argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the recommendation by the UPSC in favour of the applicant having come about while the latter was cognizant of the contents of Annexure A-12, it is plainly indefensible for the official respondents 2& 3 to deny the implementation of that recommendation issued in the year 2009. The view canvassed is that the eligibility of an employee for promotion has to be considered on the basis of the material available till the relevant date and that anything adverse which might surface subsequently, cannot validly impede the favourable consideration which had already taken place. Reliance, in support of the averred view, was placed upon
6.
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND) MEMBER(J) (RANBIR SINGH) MEMBER(A) Dated: January 22rd , 2013 ND*