29 yrs on, High Court orders Punjab doctor's reinstatement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, November 17

It’s justice at last for Dr Kuldeep Singh Badwal. More than 29 years after he was dismissed from service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed and set aside the orders. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma also made it clear that the findings of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner “committed wilful and unauthorised absence from duty” was found to be based on “no evidence”.

4.42 lakh cases pending

The delay in deciding the matter may sound exceptional, but is not extraordinary. National Judicial Data Grid figures reveal that the High Court has 4,42,957 pending cases, including 1,66,339 criminal matters involving life and liberty.

The delay in deciding the matter may sound exceptional, but is not extraordinary. National Judicial Data Grid figures reveal that the High Court has 4,42,957 pending cases, including 1,66,339 criminal matters involving life and liberty.

It is suspected that many of the petitioners in some of these long-pending cases are no more there to pursue their grievances. When some of these cases are suddenly listed, the counsels are often at a loss in the absence of complete records or instructions. The HC currently has 57 Judges against the sanctioned strength of 85.

Dr Badwal moved the court in 1996, challenging the dismissal from service in 1994. Seeking directions to the State of Punjab and other respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and full wages, the petitioner had further challenged another order issued in 1996, whereby his review petition was rejected.

The Bench was, among other things, told that the petitioner was initially appointed in February 1980 as a rural dispensary incharge. Another doctor at a later stage was directed by the State of Punjab to join the post, substituting the petitioner. But he could not handover the charge in the absence of any direction. Thereafter, a chargesheet was served upon the petitioner containing four charges.

Justice Sharma said the disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report, but failed to take notice that the two charges were not proved. The court found that the petitioner was attending his duties regularly as per findings of the inquiry officer and his work was also found to be satisfactory. As such, the findings of the disciplinary authority stating that the petitioner had committed wilful and unauthorised absence from duty was based on no evidence.

“Once the inquiry officer reaches the conclusion that the petitioner was performing his duties continuously and the local panchayat and villagers found his work to be satisfactory, the petitioner cannot be said to be wilfully and unauthorisedly absent from duty,” Justice Sharma asserted.

The Bench added the petitioner would be deemed to be reinstated with continuity in service and all consequential benefits of pay fixation and consequential retirement benefits, if he had attained superannuation.