Find a Lawyer

Case No. 266/1199 of 1981, decided on 14th December, 1983.

‑‑ R. 6 (3)‑‑Misconduct‑Lady Doctor dismissed from service on charge of corruption and misconduct‑Tribunal remanded case on ground that appellant was not given chance to defend ‑ Fresh enquiry held‑Appellant again found guilty but re‑instated in service due to dearth of lady doctors‑Punishment reduced to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect‑Second appeal challenging punishment and demanding salary during suspension period dismissed by Tribunal‑Held: In view of past service record being highly chequered one, appellant was lightly let off.

Dr. Niaz Ahmed v. State etc. P L D 1961 S C 224 and A. U. Mussarrat v. Government of Punjab P L D 1977 S C 24 ref.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent.

Dr. Mrs. Khalida Butt, Woman Medical Officer, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which she has impleaded Government of the Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Depart ment, Civil Secretariat, Lahore, as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal she has prayed that the impugned order dated 17th January, 1981, be set aside and respondent be directed to pay the appellant full pay and allowances for the period she was kept under suspension.

3. Brief facts of the case are that while the appellant was serving as a Woman Medical Officer, Vehari, she was approached by one Haji Muhammad Bashir to examine his wife who was in her family way. The appellant visited the house of the patient during hospital hours and treated her at her house. However she demanded a fee of Rs. 1,000 for her professional service and ultimately the matter was settled at Rs. 700. Unfortunately the patient died as she had delivered a still child. On the complaint of Haji Muhammad Bashir the appellant was charge‑sheeted, inquiry was held in which she was found guilty of the charge. The appel lant was dismissed from service, vide notification, dated 12th April, 1979. She filed a representation against the same which was rejected. However, she went in appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, against her dismissal from service and the Tribunal was pleased to accept the appeal and remanded the case on the ground that she was not given a chance to defend herself.

4. A fresh enquiry was instituted against the appellant in which she was found guilty but the competent authority while passing the impugned order punished her with stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. She was re‑instated in service. She made a representation against the punishment so awarded to her through this impugned order but the same was rejected. Hence this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Depart ment and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the appel lant had visited the house of the patient in her private capacity as a Doctor and not as .a Medical Officer, therefore, proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975, were not attracted in her case. It has been further argued that Haji Muhammad Bashir on whose applica tion the proceedings were initiated against the appellant, had clearly admitted in his statement that it was on his request, that the appellant had visited her house. Learned counsel has made a grievance that despite the protest of the appellant the enquiry was not conducted through Gynaecologist, therefore, the true picture of this case did not emerge. It has been submitted at this stage that the Enquiry Officer of the appellant held the status of Grade 18 Officer while the appellant was also of the same grade. While concluding his arguments the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Dr. Niaz Ahmad v. The Stale etc. (P L D 1961 S C 224) and A. U. Mussarrat v. Government of Punjab (P L D 1977 S C 24). While citing these rulings learned counsel has tried to impress that the act of the appellant was not an act of illegal gratification but only legal remuneration. With regard to the second citation it was emphasized that it being the first lapse of her in the service, she should not have been awarded major punishment.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the entire record of service of the appellant is chequered one wherein she was many a time, proceeded against for act of charging heavy fee present ing false T. A bills and misbehaviour with the patients. It has been further argued that the appellant was let off with this light punishment by the competent authority only on the ground that there was paucity of Lady Doctors and nothing else. According to the learned District Attorney the appellant should thank her stars that the competent autho rity took a lenient view of the situation whereas the charges levelled against her were of grave nature. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent through the learned District Attorney that the punishment awarded to the appellant was fully justified in view of her present and past conduct.

8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and find that during the course of the enquiry, it has been fully established through the evidence on record that she made an exorbi tant demand of Rs. 1,000 although the patient had died and it was, after great difficulties that she was persuaded to accept Rs. 700. The statement of Haji Muhammad Bashir and other P. Ws. fully substantiate this allega tion. It is also a fact which the appellant could not deny that she had left the hospital during hospital hours without informing the Medical . Superin tendent or seeking his permission.

9. We cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the service record of the appellant is highly chequered one wherein a number of enquiries were instituted against her, a matter which has been highlighted in the written statement so submitted on behalf of the respondent. For example while posted as Woman Medical Officer, she deferred the Medical Examination of Mst. Razia and Mst. Shamim and also did not give correct opinion due to ill motive, in respect of weapon of offence used in the case of Pathani wife of Mahram, She was also held guilty of charging false T. A. Bills. Even her A. C. Rs. for the years 1969, 1972 and 1973 bear adverse remarks and consequently she was not found fit for promotion from N. P. S. 17 to N. P. S. 18, by the Government in October, 1976.

10. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, can in no way be considered an unjustified punishment. We are of the opinion that the appellant was lightly let off by the competent authority keeping into con sideration the dearth of Lady Doctors in the field.

11. The result is we do not find any merits in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However there will be no order as to costs. To be conveyed to the parties according to the procedure laid down under the rules.

M.I. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.