Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Jaspal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2013
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
CWP No.14276 of 1994 -1-
***
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14276 of 1994
Date of decision: 04.10.2013
Dr. Jaspal Singh
...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
*****
Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
***
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.6.1993 (Annexure P-9) by which the petitioner was dismissed from service on the ground that it has been found that he was guilty of changing the Medico Legal Report and tampering with it and thus having conducted himself irresponsibly, while on Government duty.
2. The ground for challenging the order is that this Court vide order dated 18.8.1993 (Annexure P-7) passed in Criminal Misc. No.11834-M of 1991 expunged the remarks against him given by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala in his judgment dated 22.9.1986 (Annexure P-4) which the basis of arriving at the conclusion for dismissing the petitioner from service.
3. The pleased case of the petitioner was that he had qualified the M.B.B.S. Examination from Government Medical College, Patiala in Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -2- *** 1974 and had joined service as Medical Officer on 1.7.1976 on adhoc basis. He was appointed on regular basis on 25.3.1980. His first posting was in E.S.I. Dispensary, Rajpura and the controversy arose when he was posted at the Subsidiary Health Centre, Devigarh in District Patiala where he had prepared Medico Legal Reports of three persons, namely, Jaswant Singh, Harnek Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur on 12.6.1985.
4. In pursuance of the medical examination conducted, 23 persons were charged in FIR No.20 dated 12.6.1985 and tried under Sections 148,307,309,109,324,149,323/149 IPC by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala in which the petitioner's statement was recorded as PW-
2. The trial Court thereafter delivered the judgment dated 22.9.1986 (Annexure P-4) wherein it passed certain strictures against him which were without affording an opportunity to explain his position. On the basis of the said strictures he was placed under suspension vide order dated 13.7.1987 and was only reinstated on 22.7.1988. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to him on 15.9.1989 to which he submitted reply (Annexure P-6). On the basis of the said charge sheet, enquiry proceedings were conducted and during the said proceedings he approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No.11834-M of 1991 for setting aside the strictures passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala and vide order dated 18.8.1993 (Annexure P-7) adverse observations made against the petitioner were deleted from the impugned judgment. However, on the basis of enquiry report (Annexure P-8) he was dismissed from service prior to the order passed by this Court. He filed several representations seeking reconsideration and consequential Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -3- *** reinstatement on 27.8.1993, 13.9.1993 and 10.3.1994 (Annexures P-10 to P-12) and on account of lack of action by the respondents, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. State in its written statement took the plea that the medico legal examination was conducted by him and he was duly authorised to conduct the same being a qualified Doctor. The Medico Legal Report No.18 in respect of Jaswant Singh which bore his signature in Punjabi was cancelled whereas his recorded report at Sr. No.21 bore the thumb impression of Jaswant Singh and there were apparent discrepancies i.e. only two copies instead of four copies in respect of set no.18 were available which were cancelled. Even these two copies were not found in register but were pasted. No weapon had been mentioned against injury no.5 in set No.18 whereas in set No.21 it had been shown as fire- arm injury. Due to grave irregularities in the Medico Legal Report, he was proceeded against departmentally on the basis of complaint of Jaswant Singh and the strictures passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. He was placed under suspension on 13.7.1987 and issued charge sheet on 15.9.1989 and Dr. H.S. Aneja, the then Addl. Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. After considering the reply of the petitioner and the report of the Enquiry Officer, the charges against him were proved and he was dismissed from service. The fact that the petitioner had approached this Court through Criminal Misc. No.11834-M of 1991 was admitted and that this Court vide order dated 18.8.1993 expunged the strictures and adverse remarks passed against him. The representations moved by the petitioner Annexures P-10 to P-12 were Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -4- *** received and were filed after consideration. This Court had expunged the strictures but in departmental enquiry he was not absolved of the charges and, therefore, he was dismissed from service. The impugned order was accordingly defended.
6. Counsel for the petitioner has accordingly submitted by referring to the judgment dated 18.8.1993 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No.11834-M of 1991 that once the strictures had been expunged, the State was not justified in dismissing the petitioner from service on 18.6.1993 and by sending a legal notice dated 27.8.1993 and two representations dated 13.9.1993 and 10.3.1994, the grievance of the petitioner had not been redressed and the order of dismissal was liable to be set aside on this ground. It was further contended that the mistake in the Medico Legal Report was a result of inexperience being his first posting on permanent basis, therefore, the order of the dismissal was not justified and that he was only a Medical Officer whereas the Resident Medical Officer was to prepare the Medico Legal Report but was on leave on that date and, therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible.
7. Counsel for the State on the other hand justified order of dismissal and submitted that action of the petitioner was gravely irresponsible and it was proved that he had tampered with the Medico Legal Report and, therefore, conducted himself irresponsibly, while on Government duty.
8. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner at the first blush seems to be attractive but on closer scrutiny seems to be Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -5- *** totally misdirected and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the reasons given below.
9. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala while examining the Medico Legal Reports prepared by the petitioner came to the conclusion that a lot of bungling was done by him when he conducted the medical examinations of the injured to make out a case that the injured had received fire-arm injuries. It was noticed that the petitioner had admitted that he made an addition to the words "cannot be ruled out" in Ex. PG after writing the remaining contents of the opinion subsequently by deleting some words pertaining to Medico Legal Report of Harnek Singh. Similarly in the report of Gurdev Kaur, Ex. PD he had described the injuries No.2 and 3 to have been caused with sharp edged weapon and after scoring off the word "sharp" he added the words "kept under observation" but later on showed it as having been caused by fire-arm. He had further admitted that he had described the nature of injuries no.1 and 2 on her person as simple and thereafter scored it off where it existed as originally recorded in Ex. PD. There was a cutting in the date of arrival in Ex. PG and there was over writing in the time of examination in Ex. PD. Two loose sheets relating to the Medico Legal Examination of Jaswant Singh were found in Medico Legal Register which were marked as Ex. DB and Ex. DC which he had admitted in his own hand which pertained to Medico Legal Report No.18 of Jaswant Singh who was thereafter again medically examined vide Medico Legal Report No.21 of the Medico Legal Register. Strictures were also passed against Dr. Gandarv Singh, Radiologist also. Accordingly, his conduct was outrightly deprecated as unbecoming of a person belonging to a noble profession.
Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -6- *** The accused were also given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
10. On the basis of the said remarks, a show cause notice dated 15.9.1989 was issued against the petitioner under Section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The charges were that he had tampered with the Medico Legal Reports and firstly they had been shown to be caused with blunt weapon and that there was also over writing regarding the time and date. Accordingly, the list of charges against him which he was to defend reads as under:-
"1. Tampering with the medico legal record and overwriting on it.
2. Having unfair character and irresponsibility while on Government duty."
11. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge sheet and took the plea that it was a result of his inexperience and he had not conducted any medico legal examination prior to this case and due to which there were overwriting and cuttings. He pointed out that the judgment was based on conjectures and surmises and also termed it as a coloured judgment to be read with a pinch of salt. Fault was further laid with the police and that they should have been reprimanded for the lapses. The said reply, however, was not considered satisfactory and accordingly Dr. H.S.Aneja, the then Addl. Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 8.11.1990 to enquire into the charges and during the enquiry proceedings, the Criminal Misc. No.11834-M of 1991 was filed. The strictures recorded in the judgment which were challenged in para 7 of the petition were as under:-
Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -7- *** "The conduct of Dr. Jaspal Singh has, therefore, to be outrightly deprecated as unbecoming of a person belonging to a noble profession.
And the medical evidence on record shows that a lot of bungling was done by Dr. Jaspal Singh (PW-2) who conducted medico legal examinations of the injured to make out a case that the three injured sustained firearms injuries...."
12. This Court after noticing that there was a departmental enqiury pending against the petitioner-Medical Officer and against the Radiologist whose report was also relied upon by the petitioner held that the trial Court was not justified in condemning the petitioner and accordingly, deleted the adverse remarks mentioned in para 7 of the petition from the impugned judgment. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-
"The learned counsel for the State of Punjab has pointed out that a departmental enquiry is also pending against the Medical Officer. At the same time it also appears to be pending against the Radiologist whose report was relied upon by the petitioner.
In the circumstances of the case, it is held that the learned trial Court was not justified in condemning the petitioner while acquitting the accused.
The conclusion is that the present petition is accepted and the adverse observations made against the petitioner- Medical Officer, which find mention in para No.7 of the Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -8- *** petition, are deleted from the impugned judgment."
13. Thus, it would clear that what was deleted was only the observations reproduced in para 7 of the petition which are mentioned above in para 11. But the petitioner had been charged with changing of Medico Legal Reports and tampering with it and having conducted himself irresponsibly while on Government duty which was not the subject matter of the Criminal Misc. case. The said charge was gone into by the Enquiry Officer which was a separate set of proceedings and had nothing to do with the remarks passed by the trial Court which were expunged by this Court. The Enquiry Officer summoned the record and came to the conclusion that he could not be exonerated on the ground of lack of experience regarding major injuries. It was categorically found that there was tampering with the Medico Legal Report No.18 and only two copies thereof had been left whereas there should have been four copies and they were also affixed with gum and thus, the same were affixed later. There was cutting on the date regarding the examination of Gurdev Kaur and over writing in the description of the injuries. Similarly regarding Medico Legal Report No.21 there was also over writing regarding date of 12.6.1986 and 13.6.1985. The said enquiry report was referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission and vide letter dated 23.4.1993, it had given its acceptance for dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity to present his version after giving him the copy of enquiry report and the reply submitted by him was not found satisfactory and keeping in view the seriousness of the proved charges, the order of dismissal was passed.
14. Thus, it would be clear that the proceedings which were Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -9- *** before this Court were on different set of circumstances regarding the allegations pertaining to the observations of his conduct which were unbecoming of a person belonging to noble profession mentioned in para 7 of the petition on one hand. The issue regarding the changing of medico legal record and tampering with it which was being proceeded on the departmental side was duly proved by examining the medico legal examination record and recording evidence of Manmohan Singh, Mohinder Singh and Vimal Kumari who had brought the said record which was the other set of proceedings. The petitioner's statement was also recorded and thereafter, Enquiry Officer came to the categorical conclusion that the charges were proved against him. The State Government thereafter examined the said report and supplied the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. After finding his reply unsatisfactory and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations, the dismissal order was passed. No submission has been made on the illegality in the procedure followed and only the submission is regarding the fact that the comments stood deleted and as the petitioner was exonerated. As noticed above, the said comments were as to his unbecoming of a person belonging to a noble profession and this Court had also noticed that departmental enquiry was pending. No benefit can be given to the petitioner as the department had proceeded on the basis of the departmental enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer which was held separately without being biased with the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to find out any fault in the procedure which had been followed.
15. This Court is not to go into the issues of inexperience of the Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -10- *** petitioner. Even otherwise, a perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was working since 1976 whereas medico legal Examination in question was conducted in 1985 and in the examination-in-chief he himself had admitted that he had conducted about 90 medico legal examinations and, therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that he was inexperienced. The submission that the quantum of punishment was on the excessive side also cannot be considered by this Court since it was not the one that shocks the judicial conscious of the Court in any manner since serious allegations have been proved against the petitioner. The Apex Court in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & others (1995) 6 SCC 749 held that it is not for this Court to tinker with the punishment imposed by the Departmental authorities. The relevant para reads as under:-
"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. It the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases. impose Kumar Pardeep 2013.10.24 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.14276 of 1994 -11- *** appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."
16. Resultantly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
4.10.2013 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
Pka JUDGE
Kumar Pardeep
2013.10.24 11:32
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh