WP-4151-2015 (DR. B.R. RATNAKAR Vs PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT) 16-11-2015 Shri Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri M.S.
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.K. Mangal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.6.2015, whereby the petitioner has been relieved from the charge of Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Ratlam and the respondent No.4 has been given the said charge. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 2.7.2015 passed by the State Government approving the earlier order of the Collector dated 22.6.2015.
In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is a senior most specialist and by the order dated 19.5.2015 passed by the State Government, he was given the charge of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Ratlam but by the impugned order the said charge has been taken from the petitioner and has been given to the respondent No.4 ignoring that the respondent No.4 is junior to the petitioner and in terms of the Circular of the State, the senior most in-charge is entitled to hold the charge.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Collector was not empowered to pass the impugned order dated 22.6.2015 and that the impugned order has been passed ignoring the seniority position as well as the Circular dated 30.12.2003.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned order.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that by the order passed by the State Government in the name of the Governor dated 19.5.2015, the petitioner was given the charge of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent. Thereafter certain allegations were found against the petitioner, therefore, the Collector had passed the impugned order dated 22.6.2015 taking the charge of the said post from the petitioner and giving it to the respondent No.4. The Collector on 19.6.2015 had sent the communication to the Principal Secretary disclosing the enquiry report and allegations against the petitioner and making a request to handover the charge of the said post to some other doctor. After sending that communication the Collector had passed the impugned order dated 22.6.2015. The order dated 22.6.2015 has duly been approved by the State Government vide order dated 2.7.2015.
Considering the circumstances which are disclosed in the impugned communication dated 19.6.2015, no error is found in the impugned orders. The record reflects that an enquiry in respect of receiving bribe for issuance of disability certificate was conducted and a finding against the petitioner in the enquiry report has been recorded by the Joint Collector and the report has been forwarded to the Principal Secretary. The respondents have also placed on record the orders dated 7.12.2009 whereby the petitioner was imposed punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, order dated 18.3.2015 again inflicting the same punishment, the report of the Human Rights Commission dated 14.3.2012 recording findings against the petitioner which adequately furnishes the ground for taking charge of the post of In- charge Civil Surgeon from the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Circular dated 30.12.2003 in support of his submission that the petitioner is senior to respondent No.4, therefore, he has right to be appointed as In-charge Civil Surgeon but the said circular reveals that the rule of seniority cannot be applied in case if there are serious allegations against a doctor or in case where the Collector feels that sufficient other reason exists for not giving the charge to the senior most doctor. The procedure which has been prescribed in the Circular dated 30.12.2003 for departing the rule of seniority in exceptional circumstances by sending the proposal in this regard, has duly been followed by the Collector in the present case.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the Collector in passing the impugned order dated 22.6.2015 and the State Government has rightly approved the said order, vide order dated 2.7.2015.
Hence the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE
Comments