IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including timely inquiries and consideration of all relevant evidence, to ensure fairness.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the respondent – authority, dismissing the petitioner from the government service and further order dated 03.12.2007, dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner and confirming the order of dismissal dated 30.09.2005.

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court and has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the respondent – Authority dismissing the petitioner from the Government service and the further order dated 03.12.2007 passed by the said Authority dismissing the review application filed by the petitioner and confirming the order of dismissal dated 30.09.2005.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent – Authority to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent – Authority to reinstate the petitioner to his original post with all the consequential benefits pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner herein was originally appointed as Superintendent M.S. (Class – I) at Community Health Centre, Meghraj, District: Sabarkantha with effect from 21.07.1988 on ad- hoc basis being his first appointment after post graduation. The petitioner was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission with effect from 10.09.1991 and since then, he placed on the regular appointment of the State Government. The petitioner was serving as a Superintendent (Class – I) at Community Health Centre, Idar from 20.04.1993 onwards. The petitioner took charge as Superintendent (Class – I) at Community Health Centre, Meghraj on 21.07.1988.

3.1. The petitioner received a chargesheet dated 26.05.1999 in connection with his duties as Superintendent (Class – I) at Community Health Centre, Meghraj from 21.07.1988 to 20.04.1993. The said chargesheet contained two allegations. The first allegation was that the petitioner had performed a caesarian on one Rupiben, who had given birth to a dead child. It was alleged that during the said operation, on account of the negligence of the petitioner, one surgical instrument had remained in the stomach of the patient, which was subsequently taken out by performing another operation. It was alleged that the petitioner had displayed serious negligence in the discharge of the duties. The second allegation was that the petitioner had misplaced the indoor case-papers and x-ray reports of the said patient – Rupiben and had gone to the house of Rupiben, offered bribe of Rs.2,000/- and forcibly obtained a false statement from said Rupiben by compelling her to put her thumb impression below the statement. The petitioner was called upon to give his defense statement in connection with the said chargesheet. The staff members had given the statements against the petitioner, which are duly produced at Annexure-C along with the chargesheet dated 26.05.1999.

3.2. In connection with the aforesaid allegations, a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in the year 1992 and at that time, the petitioner had submitted defense vide letter dated 19.02.1992 duly addressed to the respondent - authority. Pursuant to the issuance of the chargesheet dated 26.05.1999, the petitioner had written a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department on 15.06.1999, asking for several details and documents. The petitioner had asked why such inquiry