Allowed

Rao Prameela Rao, W/o. Rao Srinivasa Rao, v. Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board

Telangana HC26 Jun 2013WP/2283/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging compulsory retirement proceedings. It set aside the penalty proceedings imposed on a retired staff nurse and directed that her pensionary benefits be released upon superannuation without reference to said proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings set aside; direction to release pensionary benefits on attaining superannuation age without reference to such proceedings.

Rao Prameela Rao, W/o. Rao Srinivasa Rao… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2283 OF 2004

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No.P1/Dis/2001/405 dated 21.12.2001 awarding penalty of compulsory retirement from service, Memorandum No.P1/Dis/2002/221, dated 06.08.2002 and consequently to set aside the proceedings No.P1/Dis/2001/405 dated 21.12.2001 with a further direction to release the pensionary benefits on attaining the age of superannuation without reference to the impugned proceedings.

¶4

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶5

The petitioner was appointed as staff nurse in Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board Hospital on 04.01.1971. She was promoted as senior staff nurse in February, 1980. Again she was placed as senior staff nurse (Personnel Promotion Scale) in February, 1994. The following charges have been framed against the petitioner:

¶6

“Article of Charge-I: That the said Smt.Rao Prameela

¶7

Rao while functioning as Sr. staff Nurse at Kailasapuram Branch Dispensary administered injunction to Smt.S.Kanakalakshmi, W/o.Shri S.Appa Rao, Mazdoor No.6622. Due to wrong administration of injection on left buttock of Smt.Kanakalakshmi, she has developed pain and swelling as a result of which her condition became serious and admitted in Seven Hills Hospital on 01.05.1999. After thorough examination by the Doctors diagnosed that the patient got infection abscess on left buttok with “NACROTISING FACITIS” due to which she went into septic shock by 03.05.1999 the condition of the patient became very critical.

¶8

Article of Charge-II: It was reported that Smt.Rao Prameela Rao has administered an injection to Shri Y.Suri,

¶9

Watch man No.9230 who has also developed infection abscess on the right buttock.

¶10

Article of Charge-III: It is further reported that Shri Nookanna Worker No.8642 has also took injection from Smt.Rao Prameela Rao who has also developed infection abscess.”

¶11

3. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 20.09.2000. During the enquiry, four witnesses were examined i.e., Smt.S.Kanakalakshmi, Sri Y.Suri, Sri Nookanna and Dr.L.Usha Rani. Though Smt.S.Kanakalakshmi seems to have stated in the enquiry that when she reported to the petitioner, the petitioner has not referred the matter to the Duty Medical Officer, but has simply advised her to apply fomentation to the injected area and later an infection abscess was developed to her with heavy pain and then she was referred to Seven Hills Hospital for further treatment. There was no charge against the petitioner that though Smt.Kanakalakshmi requested her to report the matter to the Duty Medical Officer.

¶12

4. The evidence of Dr.L.V.Usha Rani assumes importance. Dr.L.V.Usha Rani simply stated that the cause for infection abscess might be due to wrong techniques applied by the charged employee. The Doctor version simply shows that there is possibility of causing abscess due to wrong technique applied by the charged employee. By this it cannot be said that charged employee’s wrong technique resulted in abscess.

¶13

5. As seen from the grounds of appeal, the petitioner submitted representations on 28.07.2000, 27.09.2000 and again on 30.11.2000. The petitioner in her explanation dated 28.07.2000 raised certain issues. Her main version is that as per the diagnosis made by the Doctor and prescription of the Doctor, she has given injection to the patients. It is also her case that the suitable size of injection needle

¶14

was not supplied by the dispensary therefore she had to administer injection with the needle supplied by the dispensary. Her request to supply case sheets of the patients was not considered. The pleas raised by the petitioner in her explanation dated 28.07.2000 also were not taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. Similarly, the pleas taken by her in representation dated 30.11.2000 were also not taken into consideration. The case sheets of the patients and the observations of the doctors soon after complaints were made by the patients would have thrown some light with regard to the actual facts. It is not in dispute that now the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation.

¶15

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had no support of any co-employee in the enquiry. The witnesses were not cross examined. Though she may be negligent in discharge of her duties but no malafide intention can be attributed to her.

¶16

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, since she has already suffered, I am of the view that there is no need to remit the matter for further enquiry or awarding any other alternative punishment. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned proceedings are set aside.

¶17

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No Costs.

¶18

9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶20

26^th June, 2013 knl

Rao Prameela Rao, W/o. Rao Srinivasa Rao, v. Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rao Prameela Rao, W/o. Rao Srinivasa Rao, v. Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board

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

Similar cases

Kethavath Lalsingh, Vs Bomidika venkat Reddy

G. Malla Reddy Vs Sri Karikalavalan I.A.S.

M. Yesupadam Vs Mr. Dolaiah

Mogal Shamsheer Baig Vs Kurva Nageswar Rao

J. Ravi Kumar S/o J. Labina Vs District employment Officer

G.Anitha Rani Vs B.Prasad Rao