Partly allowed

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024WRIA/11809/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court entertained a writ petition challenging the termination of a medical officer's contract due to allegations of accepting illegal gratification. The court noted the inquiry report failed to implicate the petitioner despite conflicting statements. The court held termination based on such specific allegations is unsustainable without clear evidence, ordered filing of counter-a

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.9.2024 was kept in abeyance; leave to file counter-affidavit within three weeks was accorded.

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11809 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Deptt., Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Som Kartik Shukla,Ravindra Kumar Ravi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Puneet Chandra

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶6

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was previously working as Medical Officer in U.P. Provincial Medical Services and subsequent to his superannuation on 30.1.2016 he was appointed as Eye Consultant in District Hospital, Raebareli on contract basis on 1.1.2017. The said contract of the petitioner was renewed from year to year till passing of the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 by which his contract has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has been found to be involved in accepting illegal gratification from a patient for conducting a cataract operation. In the impugned order which has been passed by Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow on 10.9.2024 it has been stated that a news item was published by which it was stated that the petitioner has accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4300/- for conducting an operation. The respondents on coming to know of the said incident had appointed an inquiry committee to look into the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner.

¶7

The inquiry report has been placed before this Court by learned Standing counsel according to which statement of the complainant as well as the stand of the petitioner was duly considered by the said committee. The petitioner in his submissions before the committee had denied the allegations and submitted that he was not the doctor who conducted operation of the mother of the complainant. In fact, the operation was performed upon her by another doctor, namely Dr. Shakya. He has further submitted that through online transaction dated 8.4.2024 a sum of money was transferred to his account which information he received when on 10.4.2024 he went to the branch of the said bank where he was informed that the said transfer has wrongly been done and the amount credited to his account has to be returned back from where it was sent. The complainant, on the other hand, had clearly stated that it was the petitioner who had taken illegal gratification of

¶8

Rs.4000/- for conducting the cataract operation and considering the aforesaid material the inquiry committee came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material to implicate the petitioner for accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant for conducting surgery on his mother and further opined that there is no direct link between the operation conducted on the mother of the complaint and demand made by the petitioner. It is on the aforesaid inquiry report that the impugned order has been passed.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid report, it is clear that even the inquiry report did not implicate the petitioner for demand or accepting illegal gratification and in absence of any unequivocal finding against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in demand of illegal gratification, the impugned order terminating the contract could not have been passed. It is submitted that even otherwise the contract of the petitioner was till 31.3.2025.

¶10

We have also perused the terms of the contract which provides that service of the petitioner can be terminated at once by giving one month's notice unless and until there are clear allegation of fraud or involvement of the petitioner in any offence. This Court is of the considered opinion that it was open for the respondents to have invoked clause 5 and terminated his service without detailing or narrating the incident on the basis of the incident which was the subject matter of the inquiry but once they have thought it fit to end the contract on the basis of implication of the petitioner for demand of illegal gratification then unless and until there was clear and unequivocal evidence available on record, the impugned order could not have been passed. In light of the above, the matter requires consideration. Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶11

List on 14.2.2025.

¶12

Till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶13

It is made clear that passing of the interim order will not enable the petitioner to continue beyond the terms of the contract unless and until specific order is paced by the respondents in this regard or the contract of the petitioner is renewed.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 17.12.2024 RKM.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt., Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhardwaj Shiksha Sewa Samiti Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Vishal Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Mahalwar Educational Trust Thru. Its Authorized Signatory, Sri Arvind Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt of Technical Education Lko and 3 Others

Mata Madhuri Devi Sikshan Seva Sansthan Thru. Its Manager Smt. Sudha Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko and 3 Others

Kallu @ Abhinandan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

C/M Lucknow Intermediate College Thru. Manager Shri Sarvjit Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 2 Others

Ganga Prasad Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Secondary Education, Lucknow and Others