Delhi High Court
Dr. Satish Kumar Bhargava vs M.S., G.T.B. Hospital And Ors. on 14 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 129 (2006) DLT 221, 2007 (1) SLJ 413 Delhi
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
CM No. 1689/2006
1. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this application is allowed and applicant Dr. Raj Pal is imp leaded as respondent in these proceedings.
W.P.(C) 1349/2006 and CM No. 1143/2006
1. Issue Rule. With consent of learned counsel for parties, the writ petition was heard for disposal.
2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved against an order dated 4th January, 2006 by which in supersession of a previous order, his assignment as Head of the Department (HOD) of Radiology in the Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (hereafter called the Hospital ) was restricted and (Dr. Raj Pal who has been imp leaded in these proceedings today) was assigned as an Officer In-charge of the Medical Equipment. The petitioner also claims to be aggrieved by a subsequent order issued during pendency of these proceedings on 25th January, 2006 by which Dr. Rajpal was declared as Head of the Department of Radiology of the Hospital.
3. The management of the Hospital is under a dual control in the sense that the academic functioning is under the management of the University College of Medical Sciences which falls with the administrative control of the University of Delhi. As far as the infrastructure and Hospital is concerned, it is managed by the Government of NCT through the Medical Superintendent.
4. Pursuant to directions of a Division Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Young Advocates Forum v. Union of India and Ors. the dual control was sought to be rationalised by a formation of an Apex Governing Body comprising representative of the Delhi Government and the Delhi University which is to take policy decision as to the functioning of the Hospital and the College attached to it. It appears that the Apex Body has met on certain occasions and formulated broad policy parameters in which various issues including staff matters, particularly, in regard to disciplinary proceedings has been outlined.
5. Certain concerns were voiced or raised as regard the management of equipment in the Hospital. This led to the initiation of an enquiry. It is submitted by counsel that the Apex Committee had sanctioned the enquiry which is not a departmental enquiry but in order to get facts about the true state of affairs.
In two such meetings, the Apex Committee had remarked that the posting of staff, particularly, vis-a-vis the posting of the petitioner ought not be unilaterally effected. In this context, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 4.1.2006 and the subsequent order dated 25.1.2006 are not tenable because they have been issued in violation of the Apex Committee's decision.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the enquiry into the true and correct state of affairs as far as the medical equipment in the Hospital is concerned was concurred by the Apex Committee which had put its seal of approval on the posting of the petitioner as HOD even while ensuring that the control of equipment was handed over to Dr. Rajpal. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel appearing for the Government of NCT submits that for the period 14.7.2004 and 31.10.2005 in fact the petitioner was functioning only as academic Head of the Department and concerning himself purely with teaching and academic issues. In all other respects, the control of equipments etc. was with Dr. Rajpal after issuance of an order on 31.10.2005. The petitioner however started exercising complete control over academic issues as well as in relation to equipments, after November 2005. This is sought to be reversed by the order dated 4.1.2006.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pre-existing position, the petitioner's claim would be satisfied if the status quo as prevailing between 14.7.2004 and 30.10.2005 is restored. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the NCT of Delhi has no objection to this course of action.
8. In view of these submissions and the statements made by the counsel, I am of the view that respondents should take appropriate consequential order to withdraw the circular/order dated 25.1.2006 by which Dr. Rajpal was treated as Head of the Radiology Department. It is made clear that in view of the submissions, the petitioner would continue to function as HOD only regard to academic matters. As regard the control of medical equipment, Dr. Rajpal would continue to be the Officer In-charge. Let an appropriate consequential order be issued within a period of one week from today.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the Government of NCT states that the petitioner has not been co-operative with the enquiry. The petitioner is directed to do so.
10. The writ petition and all pending applications are disposed off in terms of the above directions. Order dusty.
