When one is deprived of his right of getting a promotion and the punishment will affect the pension court can partly allow a petition

Yugashree | School of Law Sastra University, Thanjavur | 29^th April 2020

Punitha Kumar vs. Principal Health Secretary

A petition to Call for the records in the proceedings of the first respondent and quash the same by filing Writ of Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The petitioner submitted that the petitioner, while he was serving as an Assistant Medical Officer at Pudukkottai District, was issued with charges and the charges are as follows:

1. During the inspection by the Deputy Director the petitioner was not on duty. However, later in the attendance register it was marked as O.D.
2. The second charge was that during the inspection, the petitioner was not on duty during the evening hours; hence O.P was not functioning during the evening time.
3. A female child was given O.P ticket on the complaint of vomiting, however the Doctor did not come to the duty, hence, the child was treated by the Homeopathy Doctor.
4. On the same date though several numbers of patients were recorded in OP nominal register only 37 new patients and 28 old patients were treated.
5. The last charge was that records were kept in the office room whereas office key was with an attender who was already retired from service.

 The petitioner was issued with charge-memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules and disciplinary action was initiated against him. On the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer that all the charges have been proved, the first respondent has passed an order for stoppage of increment for two years. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and till date, the same is pending.

Petitioners Submission:

• In view of the order of punishment, the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of getting promotion and the petitioner is now at the verge of his retirement. Having cut the increments and deprived the promotions during the currency of punishment, the authority is not entitled to deprive the pension also. 
• The enquiry officer also held that due to difference of opinion between two Doctors charges have been framed, but ought not to have recommended for punishment and prayed for quashing the impugned order.

Respondents Plea:

• The petitioner himself had accepted that during the enquiry conducted by the Joint Director of Health Services, Trichy the office key was not with an employee, who had retired from service, when the third respondent requested him to submit the operation theatre request registers and the alleged stock register.
• The petitioner has not attended duty and not conducted evening O.P on certain days he had left the patients in lurch by not coming to duty in time, when another doctor was already on leave, which resulted in law and order problem.

Court’s Decision:

Court from the materials available before it that the authorities have not considered the same and passed the impugned order, which is excessive and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the order of punishment, the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of getting promotion and the petitioner is now at the verge of his retirement and the impugned order states that the same will affect the pension of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to modify the impugned order passed by the first respondent. The court allowed the writ petition partly.