Praveen Kumari vs State of H.P. and Others

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—By means of this writ petition, following relief has been claimed:-

(i) Writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned charge sheet/memo of charges dated 17.06.11 Annexure P-9 and the consequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

(ii) That in case the respondents pass any order in the meanwhile, the said respondent may kindly be directed to place such order on the record before this Hon''ble Court and thereafter such order may kindly be ordered to be quashed by issuance of a writ of certiorari.

(iii) That writ in the nature of prohibition may kindly be issued restraining the respondent No. 5 from proceeding with the Departmental Inquiry initiated against the petitioner in pursuance with the Departmental Inquiry initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to impugned Annexure P-9.

The record reveals that the petitioner has been charge sheeted vide charge sheet Annexure P-9. The charges against her are dereliction in duty and willful absence from duty w.e.f. 11.5.2011 to 19.8.2011.

The petitioner presently is posted as ANM in Ayurvedic Health Centre, Poona, District Una. She seems to have been temporarily deployed to perform her duties in District Ayurvedic Hospital Una during the leave period of Smt. Anjana Kumari, ANM posted there vide office order dated 10.5.2011, Annexure P-6. It has been claimed that she has been charge-sheeted merely to humiliate her at the instance of the 3rd respondent, who allegedly started sexually harassing her immediately after her posting at Ayurvedic Health Centre, Poona.

Aggrieved thereby she approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 3781 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 2.6.2011, Annexure P-7. It is during the pendency of that writ petition, she seems to have availed medical leave for the period referred to hereinabove. The respondents, however, being not satisfied with her act and conduct, while alleging that on her temporary deployment in District Ayurvedic Hospital, Una instead of reporting for duty, she managed sanction of one day casual leave from her officer incharge on the ground of extreme urgency with the assurance that she will report for duty on the next date i.e. 12.5.2011 at District Ayurvedic Hospital, Una. However, instead of joining her duties, she had returned the copy of the order on that day in the morning and proclaimed further that she will not attend duties there. With such allegations, a charge sheet has been framed against her, which is still pending inquiry. Taking into consideration the case so set out in the writ petition, on 26.9.2011, this Court has passed the following order:-

No notice need be issued to respondents No. 3 and 4 at this stage. The inquiry impugned in the writ petition may go on. However, in case any order on inquiry report adverse to the interest of the petitioner in proposed to be passed the same shall be passed only after obtaining orders from this Court. Post on 12.12.2011 for further orders. Report shall be filed in the meanwhile as to the stage of the disciplinary proceedings.

The respondents when put to notice of the petition have filed reply and came forward with the version that keeping in view the shortage of nurses in District Una, the petitioner was temporarily deputed vide order Annexure P-6 in District Ayurvedic Hospital to perform duties during the leave period of Smt. Anjana Kumari, ANM posted there. While extracting Rule 11 of the Fundamental Rules, it has been submitted that a government servant is at the disposal of the Government and his services can be utilized in a manner as required by the competent authority without any claim for additional remuneration. The petitioner instead of reporting for duty at District Ayurvedic Hospital, Una, allegedly remained willfully absent from her original place of posting (Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Poona). The allegation of her sexual harassment by the 3rd respondent has been denied for want of knowledge. Further, it is submitted that had it been so, she would have reported the matter to the higher authorities for appropriate action. Thus, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has been rightly charge-sheeted and the inquiry against her is in progress.

There is no rejoinder to the contentions in the reply.

It is in this backdrop, this Court has heard learned counsel on both sides on the previous date and the order passed on that day reads as follows:

Heard for sometime. Admittedly, inquiry proceedings are in progress against the petitioner. Learned counsel on both sides are not aware about the present status thereof. Learned Deputy Advocate General to seek instruction in this behalf. Post on 20th July, 2012.

Consequent upon the above direction, learned Additional Advocate General has produced letter No. Ayur (H)(E)-(3)-41/11-original of Director Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh, the contents whereof reveal that the inquiry officer appointed to conduct inquiry in this matter stands retired and new inquiry officer is being appointed.

On hearing further arguments in this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present is not a case where it can be said that the inquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner is stale or faded away with the passage of time because the petitioner has only been charge sheeted during the last year i.e. vide charge sheet dated 17.6.2011. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the relief sought in this writ petition cannot be granted because quashing of charge sheet at this stage would amount to unwarranted interference with the departmental inquiry being conducted against the petitioner as per Rules. Such an approach in this matter at this stage may not be in conformity with settled legal principles and rather unknown to the service jurisprudence.

As a matter of fact, learned counsel representing the petitioner has also fairly submitted that without going to the merits of the case of either parties, at this stage a direction to the respondent to expedite the departmental inquiry in a time bound manner with liberty reserved to her to approach this Court again, in case she still feels aggrieved by the inquiry report or any other action taken against her pursuant to the inquiry report, would serve the ends of justice.

Learned counsel has further urged that in case the departmental inquiry instead of Shimla is conducted at Una, it would save the petitioner from undue hardship/harassment as in order to attend the inquiry proceedings, being a lady, it is difficult for her to travel on each and every date fixed by the Inquiry Officer.

No other Point is, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner.

In view of the above position, there is no need to enter into the controversy in this writ petition, on merits. A direction to the respondents to conclude the inquiry proceedings being initiated against the petitioner in a time bound manner would serve the ends of justice.

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, without entering into the controversy on merits, there will be a direction to the respondents to ensure that the departmental inquiry being conducted against the petitioner is concluded within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. This, however, shall be without any prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner to approach this Court against her surviving grievances, if any, due to culmination of the departmental inquiry. It is expected from the respondent that if practically feasible, the departmental inquiry against the petitioner be conducted at Una instead of Shimla. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.