Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA RAO,AHMED ANSARI, JJ.
Dr. K Subba Rao
Versus
State of Hyderabad (now Andhra Pradesh)
Writ Petn. No. 108/5 of 1955
Decided On : 24-01-1957
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - ENQUIRY OFFICER - BIAS - RELEVANT DOCUMENTS - CROSS-EXAMINATION - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - REDUCTION IN RANK - TRANSFER - WAIVER OF DEFAULTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a doctor, was transferred from the post of Senior T.B. Officer of the T.B. Clinic at Dabirpura to that of junior T.B. Officer of the T.B. Sanatorium at Vikarabad. He applied for leave on grounds of illness, but the Director informed him that his application would not be considered until he took charge of the new post. The petitioner then sent a medical certificate and requested sick leave, but the Director asked him to appear before a Special Medical Board. The Board found him fit to carry out his duties, and the petitioner was directed to join duty immediately. He wrote to the Director that he would be joining duty within a few days and made a further request to grant him sick leave with permission to leave the State. However, he was informed that he had been placed under suspension pending an enquiry into his conduct. An enquiry was conducted by a Deputy Secretary, who found the petitioner guilty of disobedience of Government orders and unauthorizedly staying away from duty. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice and was eventually dismissed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner and refused to allow him to cross-examine witnesses or produce relevant documents. The court also held that the transfer of the petitioner from Dabirpura to Vikarabad was not a reduction in rank. The court quashed the order of the Government removing the petitioner from service and directed the Government to pay the petitioner the costs of the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. 2. Whether the transfer of the petitioner from Dabirpura to Vikarabad was a reduction in rank.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry because: * The enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner and refused to allow him to cross-examine witnesses or produce relevant documents. * The petitioner was not allowed to engage an advocate to represent him. * The enquiry officer disallowed relevant questions put by the petitioner to elicit answers in support of his defense. 2. The court held that the transfer of the petitioner from Dabirpura to Vikarabad was not a reduction in rank because: * Both the officers held the same rank of Class I officers. * The allowance the petitioner was getting as part time Lecturer in the Osmania Medical College was not connected with his salary as Class I Medical Officer.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Government removing the petitioner from service and directed the Government to pay the petitioner the costs of the petition.
2. The petitioner holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine conferred by the Andhra University and the Diploma in Tuberculous Diseases granted by the Madras Government. On 1-1-1950, he was appointed senior T. B. Officer of the T. B. Clinic at Dabirpura. Hyderabad. On 18-6-1954, the Government of Hyderabad made an order transferring the petitioner to the T. B. Sanatorium at Vikarabad with immediate effect. On 23-6-1954, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Director, Medical and Health Services, informing him that he had an attack of appendicitis and that he would not be able to go to a place where expert medical advice was not available.
He further requested the grant of three months privilege leave which he had earned by that time. The Director informed him on 26-6-1954 that his application for leave could be considered only after petitioner had taken charge at Vikarabad. The petitioner by his letter dated 26-6-1954 pointed out that he was not in good health and made a request that, pending the decision on the question of privilege leave he might be granted sick leave for three months from 28-6-1954. He also informed the Director that he was handing over charge to Dr. Basheer Hussain, Medical Officer of the T. B. Clinic, Dabirpura.
The Director by his letter dated 30-6-1954 asked the petitioner to send a medical certificate in support of his illness and informed him that, on the receipt of the same further action would be taken. The petitioner thereafter got himself examined by Dr. P. Ramachander, M. D. and a certificate issued by him to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from subacute appendicitis and should be under careful medical supervision for a period of at least 3 to 4 months was sent to the Director.
But the Director, by his letter dated 12-8-1954, informed the petitioner that a Special Medical Board had been arranged to examine him on 18-8-1954 and asked him to appear before that Board on that date. The petitioner duly appeared before the Board and he was examined by the Board. On 24-8-1954, the Director sent a communication to the petitioner intimating to him that the Board was of opinion that the petitioner was fit enough to carry out his duties and, therefore, he should join duty immediately.
Meanwhile, the petitioner sent several communications to the Rajpramukh, the Chief minister and the Health Minister. On 5-11-1954, the Director informed him that his case had been referred to the Government and that no leave could be sanctioned till his case was decided by the Government. On 19-11-1954, the Director finally sent a communication to the petitioner drawing his attention to the previous letters whereunder he was informed that his leave could not be granted unless and until he had taken charge of the new post.
On receiving the said communication, the petitioner on 23-11-1954 wrote to the Director that, in spite of his bad health, he would be joining duty within a few days and made a further request to grant him sick leave with permission to leave the State. After writing that letter, he went to Vikarabad Sanatorium but he was informed by the Medical Officer-in-charge of the Sanatorium that he had orders not to hand over charge to the petitioner. On 11-12-1954, the Government of Hyderabad issued a notification placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from the forenoon of 27-6-1954 until further orders pending an enquiry into his conduct.
By another notification, the Government appointed Shri Kazi Moinuddin Hussain B. A., LL. B., Deputy Director to the Government in the Medical and Health Department to conduct the enquiry. The said Deputy Secretary made an enquiry and submitted a report dated 18-5-1955. He found that the petitioner was guilty of disobedience of Government orders and of unauthorisedly staying away from duty. He also, held tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
