Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Sumitra Pal D/O Late Shri M.M. Pal vs Union Of India (Uoi), Through The ... on 4 September, 2006
ORDER Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
1. By this O.A., applicant has sought the following relief:
to set aside the impugned order at A-1 and to further direct the respondents to treat the entire suspension period from 23.08.2002 to 09.10.2003 as spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that she was appointed as Specialist Surgeon Grade-II in August, 1982 and was promoted to the rank of Specialist Grade-I in the year 1991. She has always discharged her duties to the best of her ability but in spite of it, vide order dated 5.3.2002, she was transferred from R.M.L. Hospital, Delhi to Govt. of NCT, without informing her the place where she is supposed to join her duty. To a great surprise, she was put under suspension vide order dated 23.8.2002, which was revoked on 09.10.2003 but her period of suspension was to be decided after the departmental inquiry is over against the applicant. She received imputation of misconduct issued on 08.10.2003 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. She submitted her reply but till date respondents have not taken any action or passed any final order on the minor penalty proceedings even though the period of two years has already elapsed, which would vitiate the departmental proceedings itself. She has thus prayed that the minor penalty proceedings may be quashed and her suspension period from 23.8.2002 to 09.10.2003 be treated as spent on duty for all intents and purposes.
3. Respondents have opposed this O.A. They have submitted that whatever defence applicant can have can be taken by her in the departmental proceedings, which shall be conducted by the respondents against the applicant and if she has any other grievance, she should have made a representation to the disciplinary authority but since she has failed to do so, therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. They have further submitted that applicant has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The background is that applicant was issued a charge-sheet on 8.10.2003 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules for her alleged failure to take appropriate action against Dr. A.K. Panigrahi after examination of preliminary report of the respondents and in consultation with CVC which advised initiation of minor penalty proceedings. Respondents have examined applicant's reply to the charge-sheet and they are cross-checking the same with other documentary evidence available with the applicant or available in Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, therefore, no final decision has yet been taken. They have further submitted that in addition to the above complaint against Dr. Panigrahi, it was also learnt that Dr. Panigrahi has issued a false certificate. The said certificate was issued in order to enable one Mrs. Nazma to seek her exemption from her appearance in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate in response to a non-bailable warrant, which was issued against the said Mrs. Nazma by the said court. The said matter was further investigated by the CBI and the inquiry by the CBI is still pending. The applicant and Dr. A.K. Panigrahi, who had reportedly treated and issued the false medical/discharge certificate to Mrs. Nazma in collusion with each other, were placed under suspension w.e.f. 23.8.2002. It was in the background of the above serious complaints, applicant was transferred out of Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, prior to her suspension in order to facilitate the conducting of the preliminary investigation. Even Dr. A.K. Panigrahi was also transferred in the same order. Since investigation did not make much headway as CVC suggested a further examination after CBI's verification report, her suspension was revoked in the meantime but she has not joined the duties, which shows non-cooperative and irresponsible attitude of the applicant towards her duty as in addition to the above, she has absented from duty for such a long period thereby causing lot of hardship to the respondents and also making her liable for the legal consequences. They have thus submitted that they shall be taking the final decision at the earliest. As far as the period of suspension is concerned, that shall be decided after the final orders are passed.
4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that he may be given time to seek the latest development on the investigations, which are still pending.
5. I have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well. Admittedly, applicant has been given charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, on 8.10.2003 with the following allegations:
DR. (Ms.) Sumitra Pal, Spl Gr. I of CHS (presently working under GNCT of Delhi) while working as Sr. Surgeon in Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi during the year 2001 had failed to take action against Dr. A.K. Panigrahi, Sr. Medical Officer, against whom some complaints were made to her that he was charging money from some patients admitted to the surgical ward on various pretexts before operating on them. She also misbehaved with one Shri Kishore, a complainant instead of taking any action on the complaint against Dr. Panigrahi. As Head of the Unit she was required to take timely action on the complaints of corruption by verifying their veracity and/or to inform the Medical Superintendent to enable the latter to take necessary action.
By her above said act Dr. (Ms.) Sumitra Pal, has displayed negligence in work and conduct unbecoming of a Govt. Servant, violating Rule 3.1 (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
It is not disputed by the respondents that applicant had already given her reply as back as on 20.10.2003, which is annexed at page 16 with the petition. From the reply filed by the respondents, it seems that respondents have laid their hands on some more irregularities/ misconduct alleged to have been committed by the applicant but all those facts can be taken up separately. Definitely her unauthorized absence for not joining the duties in Govt. of NCT is not a part of the charge-sheet dated 8.10.2003 and is absolutely charge. Similarly, the allegation that applicant along with Dr. Panigraphi had issued a false medical/discharge certificate to one Mrs. Nazma in collusion with each other is also not part of the charge-sheet dated 8.10.2003. It goes without saying that if respondents have come across certain new facts which make out a case for misconduct against the applicant, it is open to them to issue charge-sheet to her on those allegations separately but as far as the chargesheet, which has been issued to the applicant under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, that has to be decided on the basis of allegations made in the said chagesheet I find no justification as to why a charge-sheet issued under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules (minor penalty) should take more than 3 years for taking it to a logical conclusion. In fact, in the reply respondents have already stated that respondents shall be taking the final decision at the earliest. Therefore, as far as the charge-sheet dated 8.10.2003 is concerned, respondents are directed to take into consideration the reply given by the applicant and to decide the same within a reasonable period, that is preferably six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order under intimation to the applicant. The suspension period would necessarily have to be decided only after the final orders are passed by the respondents on charge-sheet dated 8.10.2003.
6. With the above directions, this O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.