Raj Kumari vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner who has retired from the post of Nursing Sister in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of Punjab has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court impugning the order dated 8.11.2011, Annexure P 20, whereby a cut of 5% has been imposed upon her pension and a recovery of Rs. 1,34,045/- has been ordered to be effected from her. Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse and thereafter promoted as a Nursing Sister from which post she retired on 30.9.2010 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Apparently, while in service the petitioner submitted a claim of Rs. 1,66,605/- for re-imbursement towards medical treatment of her husband who was a retired employee of the CRPF. Since such claim was not being processed and the payment was not being released to the petitioner, she filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6357 of 2005 in this Court and upon issuance of notice of motion, the Assistant Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur filed a reply stating that a payment of Rs. 1,34,045/- had been paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 013013 dated 19.5.2005. Resultantly, Civil Writ Petition No. 6357 of 2005 was disposed of having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 23.5.2005. It so transpires that upon a complaint having been filed against the petitioner as regards the petitioner having raised the claim for medical re-imbursement of her husband by furnishing a false affidavit that he was dependent upon her, a charge dated 9.4.2008 was issued to her under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 on the following articles of charge:

1) For taking reimbursement of her husband on account of indoor medical expenditure, giving wrong affidavit and concealing facts.

2) Misleading higher Officers.

3) Violating Govt. Instructions/Rules.

Upon the reply furnished by the petitioner to the charge sheet having been found to be unsatisfactory, an Officer of the rank of Deputy Director was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Findings were furnished by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner and the report of the Enquiry Officer was given to the petitioner seeking her explanation. The Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab vide order dated 17.10.2010 taking a lenient view in the matter on account of the fact that the petitioner had since superannuated took a decision to drop the charge-sheet.

The State Government sought to review the matter in terms of issuance of memo dated 16.2.2011, Annexure P 14, whereby a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and she was granted 15 days'' time to file her reply. It is upon consideration of a reply filed by the petitioner and after grant of a personal hearing that the impugned order dated 8.11.2011 has been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was no occasion for the State Government to have reviewed the earlier order dated 17.10.2010 passed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare whereby a decision had been taken to drop the charge sheet. That apart, it has been contended that it was open for the State Government not to have admitted the claim of the petitioner as regards re-imbursement of the amount spent towards treatment of her husband and it is the State itself who had furnished a statement before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6357 of 2005 regarding payment of the amount in question and as such, the State was precluded from having taken a contrary view in terms of passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has also argued that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Medical Attendance Rules, 1940, Vol. I.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I find that the present writ petition deserves dismissal.

The relevant provision of the Medical Attendance Rules, 1940, Vol. I upon which reliance has been placed upon by the learned counsel reads in the following terms:

The following may also be deemed to be dependent on the employees:

i) The spouse of Punjab Govt. employee working in an institution other than Govt. but not allowed free medical facilities/treatment/re-imbursement expenses, by the employing institution, whose income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 250/- p.m. and who ordinarily resides with him/her, on an undertaking in the form of an affidavit to the effect that his wife/husband is not claiming reimbursement from the institution she/her is serving in & that according to the terms and conditions of the appointment, she/he is not entitled to free medical facilities.

(PG letter No. 5919-5HBV-79/19368 dated 20.11.1979 as modified vide 4250-5HBV-80, dated 20.5.1980).

But in the event of wife/husband whose income has been above Rs. 250 p.m. suddenly falling prey to any serious illness in consequence of which she/he becomes incapable to work & thus depends upon him/her temporarily will be deemed to be dependent on the Government employee till such time she/he becomes capable to work again & earns more than Rs. 250 p.m. In such case she/he shall have to produce a certificate from the concerned Civil Surgeon that she/he is not in a position to work & is therefore dependent on her husband/his wife & also an affidavit to this effect before any reimbursement of medical expenses is claimed.

The afore-reproduced provision would have no applicability in the facts of the present case. Such provision would apply only where the spouse of a Punjab Government employee is working in an Institution other than Government but is not allowed free medical facilities/treatment/re-imbursement expenses by such employing Institution. Admittedly, the spouse of the petitioner had served with CRPF i.e. having served under the Government of India. The protection of Rule 4 of the Medical Attendance Rules contained in Chapter 4 would not come into play so as to furnish a ground of challenge to the impugned order dated 8.11.2011, Annexure P 20.

The factual position as regards the husband of the petitioner being a retired Government employee having served the CRPF and drawing a pension of Rs. 1,300/- at the relevant point of time i.e. when the mediclaim bill had been raised is not in dispute. The furnishing of an affidavit by the petitioner at the time of submission of the claim stating her husband to be dependent upon her has also been admitted. Clearly, such an affidavit which was factually incorrect had been submitted to claim the amount towards re-imbursement of the medical expenses incurred upon the treatment of her husband. Merely on account of the fact that such claim came to be processed and the payment was released to the petitioner at the hands of the State Government which, in turn, rendered the earlier writ petition filed by her in this Court to be infructuous could not have precluded the State Government/competent authority from enquiring into the matter upon coming in knowledge that a false affidavit had been submitted by the petitioner towards raising such a claim. A regular departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner which had led to findings having been returned against her. Even though the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab had taken a decision to drop the charge sheet vide order dated 17.10.2010, the State Government was of the opinion that it was a fit case to review such decision. Prior to the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had been duly served with the show cause notice and had even been afforded a personal hearing.

The petitioner had served on the post of Staff Nurse and thereafter as a Nursing Sister. She is a literate lady and would be presumed that while furnishing the false and misleading evidence, she acted deliberately to get a claim towards medical reimbursement pertaining to her husband released knowing fully well that he was not dependent upon her. The action of the State Government in having processed such claim and having released the payment first at point of time would not absolve the petitioner of her conduct. The petitioner on account of having furnished a false affidavit and having made a mis-statement of fact has disentitled herself from claiming any relief before the Writ Court. Such conduct at the hands of the petitioner deserves severe deprecation and does not call for any leniency. I find no basis that would warrant interference in the impugned order dated 8.11.2011 imposing a cut of 5% in her pension as also the recovery of Rs. 1,34,045/- from her. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.