Palok Basu, J.:— If there be any despicable action which words may fail to convey, this bunch of writ petitions may be indicating one at least. Callousness, carelessness and negligence if reaches its hight perhaps the type of incident which has come to the notice to this Court in the course of deciding these petitions, is the zenith. Before adverting to the facts, it may be remembered that motherhood is the precious possession of a woman and if per chance she is made to sacrifice the motherhood which she is yet to enter upon, it is no less than suicidal death for a young woman. The victim in this case happens to be one Smt. Gayatri Devi, aged about 18-19 years married only a couple of months ago who, under the Government Sponsored Scheme has been operated upon for tubectomy and thereby loses the most precious possession of her life i.e motherhood. All this was done in a Family Planning Camp organised by Government Officials in broad-day-light. Does it require a statement by this Court that any one, who is found guilty for having forced Smt. Gayatri Devi into this unpardonable tragic destitution, should be awarded the maximum punishment whether be it by a departmental proceeding or a criminal proceeding or a Civil Suit.
2. When the first petition of Dr. (Kumari) Tabassum Sultana came to be filed in this Court, a detailed interim order was passed on 27th August, 1996. The District Judge, Mahrajganj was directed to make an inquiry into the circumstances which led to the tubectomy operation of Smt. Gayatri Devi on 11th March, 1996. It may be stated here that the Additional District Judge, Mahrajganj namely, Shri S.V Singh Rathore who was looking after as the officiating District Judge, Mahrajganj has taken all steps and pains to send his detailed report dated 5th December, 1995. After going through the statement recorded during the enquiry by the District Judge and the detailed report submitted by him, the Court is satisfied that the allegations made by Smt. Gayatri Devi concerning the involuntary criminal tubectomy operation performed upon her are correct. Since departmental proceedings and other proceedings emanating from the First Information Report of the husband and such other proceedings as may be advised are yet to follow, none of the observations made in this judgment shall be used as conclusive for any of those proceedings which may begin subsequently. The observations herein shall be confined to the decision of these writ petitions which are being dealt with. Before proceeding further, the Court notices with satisfaction the promptness and clarity with which Shri S.V Singh Rathore has proceeded with the matter and forwarded his report to this Court. The action is worthy of appreciation.
3. Shri B.P Srivastava on behalf of Dr. (Kumari) Tabassum Sultana argued on several points. It was stated that since the petitioner w?s concerned only with the pre-vaginal test, and the case being that a lady who came to her for the said test, was a lady of about 30 years, it could not enable the petitioner to be held responsible in any way for the subsequent tubectomy of a lady of 18 years. Shri B.P Srivastava wanted to argue as if Page: 178the lady who was examined by petitioner Dr. (Kumari) Tabassum Sultana for P.V Test was different one than the one ultimately operated upon.
4. The second writ petition of Dr. Kapil Mani Misra indicates that the said petitioner was the assistant to the surgeon, namely, Dr. S.P Singh, who had performed the operation of ill-fated Smt. Gayatri Devi. It was argued that the allegations of the respondents that petitioner Dr. Kapil Mani Misra was the assistant to Dr. S.P Singh is not borne out from the averments made in the counter-affidavit and the other material known or disclosed to petitioners so far. Suffice it to say that Shri O.P Srivastava, learned Addtional Advocate General has placed before the Court the copy of the preliminary report of the Chief Medical Officer which indicates that aforesaid assertion of the respondents to the effect that petitioner Dr. Kapil Mani Misra was assisting Dr. S.P Singh at the time Smt. Gayatri Devi was operated upon for tubectomy operation.
5. In this series the 3rd petition is of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh who admittedly was the doctor who conducted physical, heart and chest test of the lady on whom the tubectomy operation was performed needless to repeat the lady who has been operated upon is a newly married woman of 18-19 years and also who was issue-less at the time of operation.
6. This is the set of three petitions which consists of the doctors involved in the said tubectomy operation. The main doctor i.e S.P Singh, who was the surgeon, has not filed any writ petition so far, as intimated to this Court at the Bar. Similarly, the lady nurse or some other officials including Jai Narayan, the motivator, as also the other employees and doctors who may have been connected with the Family Planning Camp, have not filed any writ petition.
7. Coming now to the second set of the petitions the first one is of Ram Sanehi Pandey. Admittedly he is Registration Clerk. Unless proper registration of a patient is made, none can be operated upon much less examined for X-ray or for pathological test. It may be mentioned here that at time stage Shri R.P Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to argue that the Chief Medical Officer is possessed of a Register in which the names of all the married couples of the village are to be found and had that register having been produced or supplied before the Registration Clerk perhaps this incident may not have happened. The Court wonders how the argument helps. If the Registration clerk knew that such a register is maintained he should have seen it. If he knew that such a register has not been prepared or is not maintained, it was his duty to bring it to the notice of the Chief Medical Officer. However, these are matters to be gone into during the subsequent enquiries and not while these writ petitions against the departmental proceedings are being decided.
8. The second writ petition is of Ishwar Saran Lal Srivastava, who was the Lab Technician and was responsible for conducting blood and urine test on the patient was none else than Smt. Gayatri Devi aged about 18-19 years, who is issue-less and recently married.
9. The third petition in this series is of Shesh Mani Upadhyaya, who is a Pharmacist and unless he administers injection on the body of the patient, the tubectomy operation would not be performed on her.
10. Concerning these three employees, Shri R.P Goel argued that their responsibilities finished much before the operation was done. It was argued that since there was possibility of and expectation that the lady who may have been actually operated upon was different from the one whom these three employees had examined or tested or registered, the departmental proceedings Should be quashed.
11. Having noted the basic facts and circumstances, the argument of Shri O.P Srivastava for the three doctors and Shri R.P Goel on behalf of the three employees is that all of them are innocent and they have no role to play in the said tubectomy operation of Smt. Gayatri Devi. It is argued by respondents that charge and defence can only be adjudged in entirety as soon as departmental proceedings are initiated and that the defence version can only be gone into in those proceedings and also in such other proceedings which may take place hereafter.
12. The preliminary report furnished by learned Addtional Advocate General has more or less fixed the responsibility for the time being, to denote prima facie the participation of the petitioners along with other doctors and employees in the said camp who have contributed to the wilful negligence, resulting in committing the inhuman Page: 179crime of performing tubectomy operation on a recently married lady of 18-19 years, who is issueless. A little care and caution on behalf of any of these petitioners might have saved the newly married woman from the barrenhood which she has been forced to embrace.
13. Having thus noted all the facts and circumstances, there is no force in these writ petitions which have to be dismissed and the interim orders have to be vacated.
14. Before passing the final orders, few words have to be spoken concerning the right of Smt. Gayatri Devi which are so solemnly protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. From the facts and the circumstances recorded in the District Judge's report, it is apparent that she was treated like an animal and then dragged to the operation table to get buchered her motherhood. The negligence of the Government Officials must therefore, be borne by the Government, itself because it was a Government Sponsored Scheme under which Smt. Gayatri Devi was operated upon. Under the circumstances, taking due note of all the attending facts, a sum of Rs. 3 lacs (Three lacs) is levied as compensation to be paid by the State to Smt. Gayatri Devi. It is open to the State Government to recover the said amount from the salary or otherwise of the employees if they are found guilty during the departmental proceedings.
15. The State Government shall pay the sum of Rs. 3 lacs within one month from today. The amount shall go in the name of Smt. Gayatri Devi through the District Judge or the officiating District Judge, as the case may be. The District Judge or the officiating District Judge shall deposit the said sum of Rs. 3 lacs as Fixed Deposit Account in the State Bank of India, Mahrajganj. It is directed that no money shall be withdrawn from the fixed deposit without the leave of the District Judge, Mahrajganj. Similarly, no loan shall be permitted to be raised from the F.D.R which shall be for a minimum period of six years at the first instance. If subsequent orders are necessary, the matter shall be referred by the District Judge, Mahrajganj, to this Court. The monthly interest shall be paid by the District Judge, Mahrajganj after due verification to Smt. Gayatri Devi in the presence of two other judicial officers of the rank of Additional District Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who will sign the receipt as witnesses below declaration of D.J regarding payment.
16. Having done this only half of, what is necessary for redressal of grievances of Smt. Gayatri Devi has been achieved. To make it full, the State Government is directed further to take upon itself all the responsibility and care that may be necessary for attempting recanalysing operation of Smt. Gayatri Devi. The Court hopes and prays that State should succeed in the operation to recanalyse her whether that will be possible to achieve or not, will depend upon providence.
17. Consequently, the Chief Medical Officer, Mahrajganj is directed to summon the victim Smt. Gayatri Devi and approach the Secretary Medical Health, Lucknow for such treatment as may be necessary whether in the State or anywhere in India. Entire expenses for such treatment shall be borne by the State and Shri R.P Shrivastava, Additional Advocate General has assured the Court that he will not leave anything unturned to see that the desire of the Court is carried out in pith and substance forthwith.
18. The disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible so that the period of suspended animation does not last long.
19. With the aforesaid directions the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. The interim orders are vacated.
20. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of ususal charges within three days from today. Copy of the report of the District Judge, Mahrajganj, shall be furnished to those who apply for the same. The entire record as sent by the District Judge, Mahrajganj, along with his report shall form part of the record of this bunch of writ petitions. The photostat copy of the preliminary report of Chief Medical Officer as submitted by the Additional Advocate General, shall also form part of the record.
21. Petition dismissed.