AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mehtab S. Gill, J.—By this judgment, I shall be disposing of two Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 17432 and 14485 of 2000 as the questions of facts and law involved therein are identical in nature. For the.sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 17432 of 2000.
The petitioner has filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of letter dated October 16, 2000 (Annexure P-14) issued by the Principal, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (Respondent No.2) whereby he states that he is being victimized on his approaching this Hon''ble Court against the order dated August 22,2000 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.2 vide which he was compulsorily retired from service. Further, he has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allocate teaching/professional work to him being a qualified Surgeon. He has further prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to permit him to do private practice as it has been permitted to his other colleagues.
The petitioner has averred that Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. This society was formed to establish and manage the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, it is, thus, performing public duties. The society has been established for the promotion of medical science and medical education to provide medical aid to needy persons. The respondent-Medical College and Hospital is aiding the function of the State Government in providing medical education. The respondent Medical college was affiliated to the Panjab University, Chandigarh and is now affiliated to the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. Faridkot. The regulations relating to the conditions of service of the employees of affiliated colleges framed by the Panjab University are applicable to the colleges. The Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service of Employees) Act. 1974 is also applicable to the respondents. In view of this and also in the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ravneet Kaur''s case (1997 2 116 PLR 623 as also in the light of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., and Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others, this writ petition is maintainable. The petitioner has further averred that he was working as Reader in the Department of Surgery in the respondent College and Hospital. By an order dated August 22, 2000, he was ordered to be compulsorily retired. He filed Civil writ Petition No. 11518 of 2000 challenging the said order. The operation of the order was stayed by this Court on August 30, 2000. On October 4, 2000 the Institution, realising the illegality in the order conceded the case and withdrew the order. Sh. Prem Nath Gupta, Secretary, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Managing Society, Ludhiana (respondent No.3), who is incharge of the Institution took this as a personal affront. Right from August 30, 2000 onwards, no work was assigned to the petitioner. On October 16, 2000, the petitioner was ordered to be present in the Hospital from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and also the facility of private practice was withdrawn. This order was issued only to the petitioner and Dr. Ajit Singh Khurana, (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 14485 of 2000), who was also similarly prematurely retired and whose order was also withdrawn and has also not been assigned any work. The petitioner aggrieved against this action of the respondents in not assigning him any duty and forcing him to stay in the Hospital from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. and also withdrawing the facility of private practice, has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The petitioner has published various research papers in the National/International Journals and has been a Chief Supervisor or Co-Supervisor of 25 students, who were doing their post Graduation thesis. The petitioner has also attended approximately 30 surgical conferences and teaching programmes in general as well as in Laparoscropic Surgery. The petitioner was invited by various institutes to deliver lectures as a lecturer. The details of delivering the lectures have further been elaborated in para No.7 of the petition. The petitioner was awarded the State Award for contribution in Surgical Field by the Chief Minister, Punjab in the year 1997. This showed that the petitioner was a qualified teacher. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar, which is a post equivalent to the post of Senior Resident in the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. The petitioner worked there from 1982 till 1983. Thereafter he was selected as a Senior Resident in the P.G.I, in the Department of Surgery and he worked there from 1983 till 1987. In the year 1987 the respondent-College and Hospital advertised the post of Lecturer and the petitioner who was fully qualified applied for that post and was ultimately selected as a Lecturer. A photostat copy of the appointment order dated February 21, 1987 of the petitioner is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. The main reason for the petitioner to leave the P.G.I, and get assigned with the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital was that the doctors, while working there had the facility of doing private practice. In March 1987, when the petitioner joined the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, his salary was Rs.2,500/-. This low salary was because of the fact that he was permitted to do private practice. In the PGI with similar status and work, he would have got a salary of Rs. 10,000/- but no private practice would have been permitted. On September 15,1992, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader in the Department of Surgery. A copy of the order dated September 15, 1992 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-2. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice on May 17, 1998 as to why the facility of private practice given to the petitioner should not be withdrawn. Why his service be not terminated and why opportunity of promotion to the next higher post be not stopped. Reply was given to the show cause notice on May 23, 1998. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the respondents, it was only on August 25, 2000 that the petitioner read in a local newspaper that he and Dr. Ajit Singh Khurami have been prematurely retired by the governing body in their meeting held on August 22, 2000. A copy of the order dated August 22, 2000 prematurely retiring him from service is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-3. The petitioner filed civil writ petition no. 11518 of 2000 in which the operation of order dated August 22, 2000 was stayed. The respondents withdrew that writ petition after withdrawing the impugned order of retirement. A copy of the order dated October 4, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of this Court is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-4. After assigning the work to the petitioner, the work was withdrawn from him. This fact can be ascertained from a duty chart of the consultants in the Department of Surgery for the month of August, 2000 which was circulated on July 31,2000, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-5. A perusal of the duty chart (Annexure P-5) shows that after August 22, 2000 the name of the petitioner was totally removed from the Surgery Department. A photostat copy of the order dated August 31, 2000 giving the schedule w.e.f. August 23, 2000 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-6. In the Medical College also the position of the petitioner was the same. Prior to August 22, 2000, the petitioner had been teaching the students of both Under Graduate as also Post Graduate Courses. After the stay order was passed by this Court in the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner, the teaching work of the petitioner was withdrawn. This was done under oral orders of respondent No.3. Representation were given by the petitioner to assign him the work in the Hospital as the operation of the order dated August 22, 2000 was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated August 30, 2000. A copy of the representation dated September 1, 2000 is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-8. On September 4, 2000 the petitioner received a letter that he was allowed to join the Institution and whatever duty is assigned to him, he would do the same, but in fact, no duty was assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner then sent representations to the respondents on September 8, 2000 and September 21, 2000 (Annexures P-10 and P-10A) mentioning therein that work should be assigned to him. Thereafter, representations dated October 11, 2000 (Annexure P-11) and October 16, 2000 (Annexure P-12) were sent by the petitioner to the respondents repeating the same request for assigning work to him, but the authorities did not reply to the same. A letter was sent to the petitioner on October 16, 2000 though at that time the petitioner was ill and he was asked to remain in the Institution from 8.00 A.M. to 5. P.M. (with lunch break from 1.00 P.M. to 2.00 P.M.) from Monday to Friday and from 8.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on Saturday. Further, private practice permitted to the petitioner was withdrawn. A copy of the order dated October 16, 2000 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-14. The Punjab University Syndicate circulated a letter dated May 10, 1993 mentioning therein that all the teachers working in the Medical Colleges should be granted U.G.C. pay scales, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-16. The respondents in spite of this letter did not sanctioned the U.G.C. grade to the petitioner and Dr. Ajit Singh Khurana.
Notice of motion was issued.
Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are deliberately victimising the petitioner for filing a civil writ petition in this Hon''ble Court against the order dated August 22, 2000 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Principal Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana vide which the petitioner was com-pulsorily retired from service. In no other Institution, one can find that a highly qualified doctor, like the petitioner, is told to come from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. in the Hospital without assigning any work to him. This is a clear case of victimisation and gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice. He has further contended that the impugned order dated October 16, 2000 (Annexure P-14) passed by the S.C. Ahuja, Principal Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana is speaking for itself. The official timings in (he Hospital as fixed in the impugned order dated October 16, 2000 (Annexure P-14) are discriminatory and mala fide in nature. This is a clear case of harassment of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that Clause 2(i) to (x) of the terms and conditions as contained in the letter dated January 30, 1994 (Annexure P-15), were violated by the petitioner and therefore, in terms of Clause 2(xi) thereof, the concession of private practice was withdrawn. The concession of private practice was permitted to the petitioner vide letter dated January 30, 1994 (Annexure P-15) wherein one of the conditions was that the petitioner shall not install/use any kind of instruments gadgets, machines etc. or set up any laboratory for investigations nor carry out any surgical procedure or therapeutic work. The petitioner''s spouse was also not permitted to open a private clinic in the petitioner''s house. The petitioner was required to send his patients from his private clinic to Dayanand Medical College for investigations and admissions. The petitioner is running a multi-storeyed hospital at his residence and is routinely performing surgical operations form 3.00 P.M. onwards on all working days.''Copies of the complaints are annexed with the written statement as Annexures R-1 and R-2. The Senior and Junior Residents of the respondent-Hospital were called by the petitioner to assist in the operations and look after his patients in the Nursing Home. These complaints were got verified and discreet enquiries were made from the patients and the Residents working in the Department of Surgery. The photographs of the Nursing Home being run by the petitioner are attached as Annexure R-3. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that paragraph no. 4 of the letter dated January 30, 1994 (Annexure P-15) reveals that the petitioner''s working hours in the hospital from 8.00 A.M. to 5,00 P.M. with a lunch break from 1.00 P.M. to 2.00 P.M. on all days from Monday to Friday and from 8.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on Saturday only are applicable to all the doctors and staff of the hospital. The petitioner is being paid his full salary and allowances as per the letter referred to above. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the petitioner has falsely stated that he is a surgeon in laparoscopy, but he has not performed any laparoscopic surgery in the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.
1 have gone through the writ petition, written statement and the Annexures attached thereto. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana falls within the definition of State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, is amendable to writ jurisdiction. A Full Bench of this Court has already decided this matter in the case of Miss Ravneet Kaur v. The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana (1997 2 116 PLR 623 Wherein it was held that a writ against Private Medical affiliated College receiving aid is maintainable. The Medical Colleges are performing public duty. Medical Colleges supplement the efforts of the State. These cannot survive or subsist without recognisation and/or affiliation. Similar question regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against the management of the College has also been decided by the Apex Court in the cases of Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., and Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others, . Their lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme court have also held that the Medical Colleges do fall within the purview of the writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner is a highly qualified doctor. The grievance which the respondents have against the petitioner is that he is running a hospital in violation of the conditions as prescribed in the letter dated January 30, 1994 (Annexure P-15). Photo copies of the photographs (Annexure R-3) only show that a dental clinic is being run by one Dr. Mrs. Namita Singh. There is no multi storeyed hospital in these photographs apart from some construction material lying in front of the house of the petitioner. The complaints (Annexure R-1 and R-2) do not substantiate anything nor have the respondents put anything on record to show as to who enquired into these complaints and what was the report given by the inquiring authorities. Copy of complaint (Annexure R-2) is from the Faculty Members, Department of Surgery, D.M.C. Ludhiana and it is signed by the Members of Faculty, Department of Surgery, D.M.C., Ludhiana. Who looked into these complaints and how they are substantiated there is nothing on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on the file the photographs of the clinics being run by other doctors namely, Dr. B.S. Shah, M.D. Reader Pathology, D.M.C. Dr. Manoj Sobti, Head Neuro Surgery, D.M.C. Dr. J.L. Bassi. Professor of Orthopedics. D.M.C. and Dr. J. Bindra, Head Department of Dental, D.M.C. These photographs (Annexures P-20 to P-26) show that it is not only private practice is being done by the other doctors but full-fledged hospitals are being run. As per the photographs those are not only single storeyed but are multi storeyed buildings. The photograph of the hospital run by Dr. Manoj Sobti show that it is a three storeyed building. Definitely, these doctors are not only using these huge building for their private homes but definitely are using also for admitting their patients as nursing homes. It is strange that no action has been taken against these doctors but the petitioner alongwith another doctor namely, Dr. Ajit Singh Khurana has been singled out for action.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of P.K. Chinnasamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1988 LAB 1.C.32, wherein their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme court while adjudicating upon the case of a public servant for not giving him posting and work commensurate to his status held that it cannot be lost sight of that every public officer is a trustee and in respect of the office he holds and the salary and other benefits which he draws he is obliged to render service to the State. The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that he would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the State. It has been further held that if an Officer does not behave as required of him under the law he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the Consolidated Fund. Though the petitioner is not a public servant, but this authority would apply to such like Institutions as is the respondent-Institution where the doctors are also dealing with the public. A highly qualified doctor like the petitioner cannot be asked to come to the College, Hospital and then not assign him any work. This is clearly being done only to victimise the petitioner as he had approached this Court to redress his grievance.
In view of the above discussions, the letter dated October 16, 2000 (Annexure P-14) issued by the Principal. Dayanand Medical college and Hospital, Ludhiana is poshed. The respondents are directed so assign work to the petitioner according to his qualifications and his status in the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, The respondents are further directed to give pay scale to the petitioner as is being given to other doctors of similar status and position in the respondent-Hospital. The petitioner shall also be permitted to do private practice according to the terms and conditions as given in the letter dated January 30, 1994 (Annexure P-15).
With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed.