IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ravi Ranjan, Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. (Mrs.) Karuna Jha, wife of Dr. C.B. Choudhary & Anr. – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 394 of 2018 With I.A. No. 6618 of 2018
Decided On : 11-02-2021
Rajenedra Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 2002 - Section 32 - Service Code – Rule 74 (b) and Rule 16 - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - Post of Civil Assistant Surgeon - Departmental proceeding – Unauthorized Absent from duties – Removal from service - A departmental proceeding has been initiated against writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 on first charge that she has been doing private practice and has been absenting from her duties and second charge was that though she was removed from service by office order for an unauthorized leave of eleven months and doing private practice but inspite of that she gave her joining suo moto and resigned suo moto and has been on unauthorized leave, disobeys the government orders which is undisciplined - Held, Application under Rule 74(b) does not confer any right for separation from service rather it is discretion of State Government to accept or not accept - Court view learned Single Judge was not right in saying that, since there is no misrepresentation, writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 would be entitled for monetary benefit for period without enquiry with respect to conduct of writ petitioner-respondent and without recording a finding as to whether at that point of time writ petitioner was gainfully employed or not - It is settled position of law that Article 226 of Constitution of India confers power on High Court to maintain equity but not for recording sweeping finding that as there is no misrepresentation by writ petitioner-respondent payment has to be made and recovery cannot be allowed without any thorough enquiry taking into consideration of fact that admittedly writ petitioner-respondent has not performed her duty and may be gainfully employed during that period - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
1. Heard, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-RIMS.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. The instant intra Court appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent against the judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5125 of 2012 whereby the writ petition has been allowed and resolution dated 25.07.2012 have been quashed whereby, the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the writ-petitioner and Memo dated 20.02.2013 by which the writ petitioner-respondent no.1 has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 23,65,858/-in the name of Director, RIMS.
4. The brief facts made in the writ petition which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the case are as under:-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.