Certain Punjab Govt. Officials Stooped Low To Punish A Senior Doctor Nearing Retirement For Challenging The Executive In Court: SC Deprecates ‘Vile Acts’ Of State Officials
The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal Order and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Senior Medical Officer eleven days before his retirement.
The Supreme Court has deprecated “vile acts” of State Officials while observing that certain officials of the Government of Punjab have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for daring to take them to the Court.
The Court set aside the dismissal Order and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Senior Medical Officer (Appellant) eleven days before his retirement. The Court held that even though the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the penalty of a 2% permanent cut in pension imposed on the Appellant, it ought to have set things right by interfering with the findings and granting full relief to the Appellant.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed, “As the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, none can perhaps deny that a welfare state ought to strive for achieving the maximum welfare and securing the best interests of the people. This happens to be a case where certain officials of the GoP have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a court of law. While deprecating such vile acts of the concerned officials, we see the need to adequately compensate the appellant.”
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia represented the Appellant, while AOR Nupur Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant retired after serving the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Punjab (GoP) for 34 years. Eleven days earlier, a charge-sheet was issued against him for not complying with the directions of the Election Commission, absence from duty, and issuing threats to a Senior Assistant. Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority ordered a permanent 2% cut in his pension.
The High Court later modified the penalty to a 5-year reduction in pension. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court noted that officials within six months of superannuation were exempted from election duty as per the Election Commission.
The Court also noted that no material evidence was produced to establish that the Appellant was informed about the cancellation of his leave. The Senior Assistant, who allegedly informed the Appellant, was not examined as a witness during the inquiry.
“However, what has overwhelmed our ability of comprehension is that the Division Bench despite having returned clear findings in favour of the appellant adopted a hands-off approach by leaving the findings with regard to the charges untouched. In our considered opinion, the tenor of the impugned order does suggest that the Division Bench found the appellant to have been wronged and regard being had thereto, the Division Bench ought to have set things right by interfering with the findings and granting full relief that we intend to grant to the appellant,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “The impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside together with the order of dismissal passed by the Single Judge. The order of penalty passed by the appellant’s Disciplinary Authority also stands set aside and the writ petition is allowed. We direct that the appellant shall be entitled to full pension without any cut. Whatever quantum has been deducted from his pension shall be returned, within three months from date, together with interest @ 6% per annum.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State Of Punjab & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 83)
