Gujarat High Court
Palakonda Paparao S/O Palakonda ... vs Union Of India Through The ... on 16 June, 2021
Bench: A. P. Thaker
C/SCA/19061/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19061 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Sd/-
=====================================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the No
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=====================================================================================
PALAKONDA PAPARAO S/O PALAKONDA SANGAM NAIDU
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY & 3 other(s)
=====================================================================================
Appearance:
GIRISH K PATEL(2770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PY DIVYESHVAR(2482) for the Respondents
=====================================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 16/06/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
1. Rule. Learned P.YDivyeshvar, learned Central Government
Standing Counsel, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondents.
C/SCA/19061/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
2. With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. By way of present petition filed under Articles 14, 16, 21 and
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as
under :
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside
impugned order dt. 28-02-2019 passed by the Resp. No 2,
rejecting the Revision Application of the petitioner confirming
the Appellate order dt. 05-10-2018 of Resp. No. 3 and final
order dt.04-07-2017 of Resp. No. 4, Disciplinary Authority,
awarding the punishment of "Reduction of pay by two stages
from Rs.26,000/- ot Rs. 24,500/- in the matrix of 7th CPC for a
period of 3 years with commulative, a penalty of huge
economic loss by holding that petition has no intention to be
absent and he was absent due to his serious illness, supported
by medical evidence and impugned order is not
commensurate with the alleged offence and the same is
perverse, illegal and arbitrary and unconstitutional."
4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondents have
filed affidavit-in-reply dated 25.02.2020 and annexed certain
documents. The petitioner has also filed affidavit-in-rejoinder
dated 03.02.2021 and annexed certain documents. Out of those
documents, which have been produced along with affidavit-in-
rejoinder, a medical certificate dated 08.01.2020 issued by the
Civil Surgeon, Resident Medical Officer, Area Hospital,
Palakonda, Dist. Srikakulam - 532440, State of Andhra Pradesh
is also produced at Annexure -J. In the said medical certificate,
the Medical Officer has clarified certain aspects about the
certificate issued by himself, which has been heavily relied
upon by the respondents for imposing the punishment of
reduction of pay by two lower scales for a period of 3 years with
cumulative effect.
C/SCA/19061/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
5. The short facts arise from the record are that the petitioner,
who was working as a constable with the concerned respondent
authority, went on casual leave from 13.11.2016 to 19.11.2016.
When he was on leave, he suffered from Chicken Gunya and was
treated by the Government Hospital, i.e. A.P.Vaidya Vidhana
Parishad, Area Hospital, Palakonda. He requested for extension
of leave by producing certain certificate. He ultimately resumed
duty on 02.05.2017. The concerned department verified the
medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer. During
investigation, the Civil Surgeon, who had issued the medical
certificate, made statement before the concerned respondent
authority that he had issued the medical certificate but he had
not mentioned about the illness of Chicken Gunia. Accordingly,
punishment was imposed upon the petitioner.
6. Now, the petitioner, along with affidavit-in-rejoinder, has
produced certificate dated 08.01.2020 issued by the same
Medical Officer, who had treated the petitioner, clarifying
about the sickness of the petitioner and period of treatment
given by him. The said certificate suggests that the petitioner
was treated by him from November, 2016 to May, 2017 for the
ailment of Chicken Gunya and Chikenpox.
7. Mr. Girish Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner,
states that the Civil Surgeon, who had treated the petitioner,
while issuing the medical certificate dated 08.01.2020, had
clarified in his statement, which has also been recorded by the
concerned respondent authority and therefore, appropriate
order may be passed.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Divyeshvar, learned Central Government
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, states that
C/SCA/19061/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
this certificate was never produced by the petitioner nor any
clarification was made by the Civil Surgeon, who had treated
the petitioner, when the genuineness of the said certificate was
examined by the concerned respondent authority. Therefore,
no interference in the order passed by the respondent
authorities is required and the petition may be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. We have gone through the statement made by the Civil
Surgeon on 21.03.2017, by which, he has stated as under:
"He has taken sick certificate. I issued only sick certificate.
There is no chicken gunya."
10. Whereas, the certificate dated 08.01.2020, which is produced at
the instance of the petitioner, issued by the Civil Surgeon,
reads as under:
I, P. Vishveshavar Rao, Civil Surgeon, Resident Medical
Officer, Area Hospital, Palakonda, Distt.- Srikakullam, Andhra
Pradesh certify that Shri Palakonda Paparao, who is working
in CISF was treated by me in Area Hospital, Palakonda from
November, 2016 to May, 2017 (till he recovered) as he was
suffering from Chikunguneya and Chickenpox.
I further state that one Rajesh Bandaru of CISF approached
me without original papers and demanding certificate for
treatment of Palakonda Paparao in hurriedly without name
and date. I wrote that only sick certificate issued and there is
not Chikunguneya. Area Hospital is very big and thousands of
patients approached for treatment, so different to give
certificate exactly. But, when Shir Palakonda Paparao
approached me with the said certificate, I remember that I
have treated him but inadvertently such certificate is issued,
which is not corrected.
Medical prescriptions and sick certificates for the above
period are signed by me and it is true and correct."
C/SCA/19061/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/06/2021
11. Having gone through the aforesaid certificate, we are of the
opinion that let the matter be re-examined by the concerned
respondent authority. Accordingly, present petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Respondent
No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned
respondent authority i.e. respondent No.4 shall re-examine the
case of the petitioner and after verifying the certificate and
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall
pass a fresh order. Rule made absolute.
12. It is hereby made clear that if the certificate dated 08.01.2020
produced by the petitioner along with affidavit-in-rejoinder is
found false, it would be open for the concerned respondent
authority to take appropriate action including criminal
proceeding and other departmental inquiry against the
petitioner.
Sd/-
(A.J.DESAI, J)
Sd/-
(DR. A. P. THAKER, J)
F.S. KAZI
