Find a Lawyer

Case No. 99/1239 of 1985, decided on 11th June, 1985.

‑‑‑R. 7‑‑Enquiry‑‑Accused himself admitting charge in writing‑‑Pro cedure of enquiry and its legality‑‑Immaterial.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Scope‑‑Disciplinary action‑‑Doctor charged for mis-describing nature of injury in his report‑‑Imposed penalty of censure and also debarred from doing medico‑legal and post‑modem work for a period of two years‑‑Penalty found by Tribunal as justified‑‑Debarring from doing medico‑legal and Post‑mortem work, in circumstances, held, nothing but an executive direction hardly within jurisdiction of Trib al.

Ch. Mushtaq Nasood for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑Dr. Abdul Ghafoor Raza, Medical Officer, Tehsil Head Quarters Hospital Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Government of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore, Director, Health Services, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that penalty of Censure contained in impugned Order No. A‑367.14533. El, dated 24‑7‑1984 and order, dated 12‑2‑1985, be set aside.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was issued a charge‑sheet No. A‑367/10890/EI, dated 15‑4‑1984, by the Director, Health Services, Punjab, Lahore, in the capacity of his being an Authorised Officer. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, Medical Superintendent, District Head Quarters Hospital, Sheikhupura, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against him. The appellant submitted his reply vide his letter addressed to Medical Superintendent District Head Quarters Hospital, Sheikhupura, indicating that due to rush of work, he just wrote the word 'lobe' instend of word 'Pinna' and conceded that it had happened through an oversight and not intentionally. He further expressed his sorrow over the matter and submitted that the same was not intentional and promised to be careful in future. However, inquiry was conducted against him and it was found that the report given by the appellant was incorrect. He was allowed to peruse the inquiry report at the time of personal hearing and after being heard in person, he was inflicted with a penalty of Censure and was also debarred from doing medico‑legal and post‑mortem work for a period of two years. The appellant filed a departmental appeal to respondent No. 1, which was ultimately rejected vide order, dated 12‑2‑1985. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard .the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a grievance that the Enquiry Officer before whom the appellant appeared did not allow him to cross‑examine the witness or scrutinize the record in his presence, therefore, it was an exercise of ex parte. He has made a grievance that he was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report before he was heard by the Authorised Officer. It has been further argued that the two penalties could not be imposed upon the appellant arising out of one incident viz. Censure as well as debarring him from doing medico‑legal and post‑mortem work for a period of two years which amounted to double jeopardy.

6. With regard to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that all what was done by him was not intentional and in fact his opinion was misconstrued and not properly appreciated.

7. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that whatever may .be the circumstances of the case, the fact remains that the appellant had himself admitted in writing that his opinion was incorrect and the same was given unintentionally due to rush of work and had promised to remain careful in future. According to the learned District Attorney, after this letter of the appellant duly signed by him, there was hardly any necessity to got into the procedure of inquiry and to examine its legality.

8. With regard to the point of double jeopardy as claimed by the appellant, learned District Attorney has submitted that the penalty of Censure was happily accepted by the appellant at the time it was announced and the second direction was of an executive nature which had to follow in consequence of the said penalty so imposed upon him.

9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and find that the appellant has himself admitted in writing that in fact he had mis-described the injury and the same had occurred due to rush of work for which he was extremely sorry. This commitment was made by the appellant himself and the learned counsel for the appellant was hardly left with an argument to defend the appellant by claiming more loyalty to the king than the king himself. We have looked into the legal objections and find that the appellant was allowed to read the inquiry report, was given personal hearing and there was hardly anything for him to cross‑examine the witness because the evidence against him was documentary in nature and nothing else which he had already accepted by his letter addressed to the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Sheikhupura. Similarly the Authorised Officer had taken a very leinent view and let him off with a penalty of Censure, therefore, no exception can be taken to the same. With regard to the debarring him from doing medico‑legal and post‑mortem work for a period of two years, we are fully satisfied that this direction was nothing but an executive direction which the authority was so fully empowered to issue this mandage. This being an executive matter hardly falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to decide the same.

10. The result is, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders and dismiss the appeal as be without any merit. There will be no order as to cost.

A. E.

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.