Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Mrs. Biyola Baruah, Wife of Mr. Maheswar Saikia - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India, represented through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and family Welfare and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 2209 Of 2021
Decided On : 07-03-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.C. Borbora, assisted by Ms. N. Dey.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.K. Dutta, Mr. K. Gogoi.

IMPORTANT POINT
The charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be vague and non-specific, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to put up a specific defense. The court refrained from returning any finding at this stage as the disciplinary proceedings had not yet culminated into any finding by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority.

Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Vague Charges - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - [PSYCHIATRIC NURSING] - [Rule 3(ii) and 3(iii) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964] - The court examined the charges levelled against the petitioner and found them to be vague and non-specific, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to put up a specific defense. The court refrained from returning any finding at this stage as the disciplinary proceedings had not yet culminated into any finding by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was given liberty to raise the issue before the Enquiry Officer and/or the disciplinary authority during the course of the proceedings. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity to examine and take notes of the documents relied upon for the purposes of the enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Post Graduate in Psychiatric Nursing, was appointed as a Staff Nurse at the LGB Regional Institution of Mental Health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was assigned night duty and subsequently instructed to avail special leave. Upon resuming duties, the petitioner was served with a memorandum containing charges of misconduct and violation of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. The petitioner objected to the appointment of the Presenting Officer and approached the court for appropriate writ direction or order.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from returning any finding at this stage as the disciplinary proceedings had not yet culminated into any finding by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was given liberty to raise the issue before the Enquiry Officer and/or the disciplinary authority during the course of the proceedings. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity to examine and take notes of the documents relied upon for the purposes of the enquiry.
Issues: The charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be vague and non-specific, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to put up a specific defense. The petitioner objected to the appointment of the Presenting Officer and approached the court for appropriate writ direction or order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from returning any finding at this stage as the disciplinary proceedings had not yet culminated into any finding by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was given liberty to raise the issue before the Enquiry Officer and/or the disciplinary authority during the course of the proceedings. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity to examine and take notes of the documents relied upon for the purposes of the enquiry.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, and the interim order was vacated. The respondent authorities were permitted to proceed with the enquiry proceedings subject to the directions provided by the court. The petitioner was granted every opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceedings and to lead evidence in support of her defense, including the examination of witnesses put up by the employer institute.

JUDGMENT :

(Soumitra Saikia, J.) :

Heard Mr. A. C. Borbora, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K. Dutta, learned standing counsel, LGBRIMH and Mr. K. Gogoi, leanred CGC appears for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner praying for a writ of certiorari for setting aside and declaring the impugned Office Order dated 27.01.2021 bearing No. LGB/Estt./DISP/2047/20/342, whereby the respondent No.3 was appointed as Presenting Officer and further to call for the records including the Attendance Registers, Duty Roosters, in original and pending disposal of the Rule not to give effect to the office order dated 27.01.2021. The writ petition was subsequently amended with leave of the Court and besides the existing prayers, further prayer of interference with the impugned Memorandum dated 26.11.2020 bearing number LGB/Estt./PF/04/1510/4153 containing the Articles of charges, declaring it to be illegal and unconstitutional and also pass any other appropriate writ direction or order.

3. The writ petitioner is a Post Graduate in Psychiatric Nursing and was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse at the LGB Regional Institution of Mental Health, Tezpur by order dated 18.10.2003 bearing No. LGB/Estt./INT/SN/01/249/3234 issued by the respondent No.2. Pursuant thereto her appointment was regularized in the said post by order dated 26.10.2005 bearing No. LGB/EST./1582/6840 issued by the respondent No.3. The petitioner is posted as Nursing Tutor in the Department of Psychiatric Nursing in the LGB Regional Institution of Mental Health, Tezpur with effect from 01.05.2011 to 07.08.2018. During her service as a Nursing Tutor, several batches of nurses graduated from the said Institute. However, petitioner was not permanently posted as Nursing Tutor and consequently, she has been rendering her services as a Staff Nurse in the LGB Regional Institution of Mental Health, Tezpur. During the Covid-19 pandemic situation, which culminated in a total lockdown of the entire nation with effect from 24th March, 2020, frontline workers in the Health Sector were issued instructions to take all steps necessary as directed for prevention and containing Covid-19 pandemic situation. At that relevant point in time, the petitioner was assigned her night duty which she completed with effect from 22ndMarch to 24thMarch, 2020. After completing her night shift/night duty, she was informed by the authorized Ward in-charge, to avail special leave or special off (SP/SO) from 26th March 2020 for a period of one week during the initial period of total lockdown. Petitioner was given to understand that it was a measure undertaken pursuant to office memorandum dated 19.03.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personal Public Grievance and Pensions Department, Government of India. As per the said office memorandum, Heads of departments were directed to ensure 50% of group B and C employees to attend office every day and the remaining 50% staffs were instructed to work from home. In terms of the said office memorandum, the Ward in-charge make necessary alterations and re-allotted the duties to the petitioner and other Nurses. The petitioner and the other nurses were supposed to report for duty earlier as par the scheduled were directed to stay at home till 01.04.2020. These duties which were struck off is clearly evident in the duty allotment register maintained in the office. The petitioner, who does not reside within the campus, attends to her workplace from her residence, which is situated at some distance from the campus. However, because of the total lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic situation, her movement from her residence to the campus was required to be undertaken by her personal vehicle and for which purpose necessary car passes were required. In spite of requests made by the petitioner for allotment of the car passes no steps were taken by the authorities and thereby putting the