Dr.Malti Gautam vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4975 Del

$~17
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Date of Decision: October 29, 2013

+                                W.P.(C) 6793/2013

       DR.MALTI GAUTAM                                     ..... Petitioner
                Represented by:        In person

                                       versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                           ..... Respondents
                Represented by:        Mr.Anil Kumar Gautam, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM No.14743/2013 Allowed; subject to just exceptions.

WP(C) 6793/2013

1. The petitioner has been heard in person. Learned counsel for the respondent who appears on advance copy being served has also been heard. The writ petition has to be allowed for the reason the charge as also the statement of imputation against the petitioner is vague. It is as vague as vagueness can be.

2. It is settled law that the purpose of a charge sheet is to make it known to the delinquent employee as to what he/she has to meet. A vague charge sheet violates the principle of natural justice i.e. the right of a person charged to know what the person has to defend.

3. The sole article of charge reads as under:-

"That the said Dr.Malti Gautam while working as Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) at Rural Health Training Centre, Najafgarh, New Delhi has failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government Servant inasmuch as she availed casual leaves in excess o permissible limits and refused to see the patients, including staff patients, referred to her. Dr.Malti Gautam has also indulged into such acts as misbehaviour with the office staff and wilful non- compliance of the orders issued by the senior officers which amounts to insubordination."

4. The statement of imputation mirrors the language thereof. It reads as under:-

"Director Rural Health Training Centre, Najafgarh, New Delhi vide his letter dated 17.10.2012 forwarded a letter to this Ministry submitted by Dr.Kiran Dambalkar CMO I/c of Primary Health Centre, Palam under RHTC Najafgarh complaining therein that Dr.Malti Gautam, Chief Medical Officer (NFSG) of CHS while working at Rural Health Training Centre, Najafgarh, New Delhi availed casual leaves in excess of permissible limits and refused to see the patients, including staff patients, referred to her. Dr.Malti Gautam has also indulged into such acts as misbehaviour with the office staff and wilful non-compliance of the orders issued by the senior officers which amounts to insubordination. Subsequently, this Ministry vide letter dated 07.11.2012 requested Director, RHTC Najafgarh to seek an explanation from Dr.Malti Gautam on the charges levelled against her. The same was forwarded by the Director, RHTC Najafgarh vide his letter dated 20.12.2012 with the recommendation that appropriate measure be taken in the matter and Dr.Malti Gautam be posted outside RHTC Najafgarh in the public interest."

5. To allege against the petitioner that she has indulged into such acts as misbehaviour with the office staff, the language used in the charge sheet and

the statement of imputation is vague besides being grammatically incorrect. To allege against a person that 'you have indulged into such acts as misbehaviour with the office staff' makes no sense to us.

6. That apart, what were the acts constituting misbehaviour. They were directed against which office staff. When was the offending act committed. Where was the offending act committed. Nothing being stated makes a charge vague. Unfortunately, the statement of imputation also does not throw any light.

7. We find that the issue of the charge sheet being vague in the Original Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal but has not been dealt with in the impugned decision. We allow the Original Application and quash not only the impugned order dated September 25, 2013 dismissing OA No.1216/2013 but we even allow the said Original Application and quash the charge sheet issued to the petitioner under cover of a memorandum dated March 06, 2013.

8. Since the charge sheet has been quashed on the ground of being vague it would be open to the department to issue a fresh charge sheet after curing the defect in the charge sheet which we have quashed.

9. No costs.

CM No.14742/2013 Dismissed as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE OCTOBER 29, 2013/mamta