PRABHA ATRI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-28
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
December 11,2002
PRABHA ATRI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
P K RAMACHANDRA IYER DR Y P GUPTA DR T S RAMAN OM PRAKASH KHAUDHURI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]MOTI RAM VS. PARAM DEV [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD VS. SATYA PAL ARORA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-111] [REFERRED TO]DEPPAK KUMAR BALI VS. HMT LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV DEO SHARMA VS. SECRETARY SRI NAND RAIJI MAHARAJ NAND KILA GOKUL MANDIR SAMITI [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
K R BHATTI VS. Y S PARMAR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(HPH)-2011-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHJAHAN SALEEM VS. ASSAM STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(GAU)-2004-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
ROHMINGLIANA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
SADHAN DATTA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2005-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
SAFIQUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SHANKAR TRIPATHI VS. PROJECT OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-2004-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL THAKUR VS. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION [LAWS(MPH)-2008-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR ADARSH FILM INSTITUTE VS. M K SHARADA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
K HARIDAS L SHENOY VS. JOHNOSON and JOHNOSON LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
N S HARIKISHORE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2011-7-163] [REFERRED TO]
M S MUNIVENKATAPPA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
LADY CADET SHIVANJALI SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
SHAOKH RIYASAT ALI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(BOM)-2006-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
J M SINGH VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-83] [REFERRED TO]
RENU GIRDHAR VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CHH)-2008-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR (RETD.) RAJ MOHAN VS. OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-279] [REFERRED TO]
PERSONNEL MANAGER, CENTRAL WAREHOUSEING CORPN VS. P.O., G.C.I.T. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-272] [REFERRED TO]
Le Meridien VS. Ms. Pramila [LAWS(KAR)-2005-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUBIR SINGH VS. AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE GNCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-411] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. SRI KANT SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE MAHOBA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
ASIM KUMAR SINHA VS. KONNAGAR MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
VED PRAKASH AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2011-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR SONKER VS. DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
Sandhya Sharma VS. District Judge, Rampur and others [LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-175] [REFERRED TO]
L.NAGARAJU VS. SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(APH)-2013-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
NUCIEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA,LTD VS. HARI SINGH RATHORE [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-33] [REFERRED]
Sultan Singh VS. State of Himachal Pradesh [LAWS(HPH)-2010-10-154] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA PRASAD BELWAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH CHAUHAN VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-298] [REFERRED TO]
PIYUSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. LEPROSY MISSION TRUST INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-281] [REFERRED TO]
S.P. VIMALA VS. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, (HIGHER SECONDARY), CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
ATALANTA PUMPS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. KUNDA J. MAJLI [LAWS(KAR)-2015-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
R.S. MEHRISH VS. LIC OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-7-185] [REFERRED TO]
M. MOHAMMED AKBAR BASHA VS. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH MITTAL VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AT ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-352] [REFERRED TO]
PHULORA PRINTERS VS. ANKUSH SITARAM SAWANT [LAWS(BOM)-2016-4-202] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR MAHI VS. P G I M E R CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-651] [REFERRED]
SHAIL MODI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV CHARAN LAL PATHAK VS. STATE OF M P & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-6-138] [REFERRED TO]
SK. MD. ANISUR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2017-12-220] [REFERRED TO]
KALKA PUBLIC SCHOOL VS. N B TIWARI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-477] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA THRU SECY MINISTRY OF HOME AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-335] [REFERRED TO]
NATVARBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL SINCE DECEASED VS. ROHIT MILLS CO. LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-444] [REFERRED TO]
BINAY KUMAR THAKUR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS [LAWS(PAT)-2019-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
ANSHUMAN RATHORE VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ PRESSINGS VS. SURESH RABHAJI GAIKWAD [LAWS(BOM)-2019-6-232] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA KUMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-139] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-261] [REFERRED TO]
C.KUPPUSAMY VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-442] [REFERRED TO]
A. S. RAGHAVENDRA VS. BHARATI AIRTEL LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2019-11-168] [RERERRED TO]
VIDYA ANANT VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(CHH)-2021-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
LAVLESH KUMAR MISHRA VS. MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Raju, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant, who was working as Anaesthetist in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad, was issued with a Memo dated 5-1-1999, bringing to her notice a lapse in that she left without informing even Dr. Banerjee, when he requested her around 1300 hrs. to give anaesthesis to one patient admitted in emergency with shock due to ruptured uterus, which needed urgent operation, and such conduct not only amounted to negligence as per Hospital Service Rule 10(i) but also was against medical ethics. She was also asked to submit her explanation by 5.00 p.m. on 6-1-1999, failing which it would be taken that she accepted the lapse and the Hospital would be at liberty to proceed against her as per Service Rules. Since the appellant did not respond, on 8-1-1999 the appellant was placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending institution of a domestic enquiry pertaining to the above incident. On receipt of the said Memo on 9-1-1999, the appellant replied to the Secretary of the Hospital that she had already clarified her position verbally in his presence that on that day she was sick and very tired, that Dr. Navneeta Banerjee also denied having made any complaint as such except writing for purposes of record about the incident and that formal reply in writing was not sent since she had already explained the position and nothing more was required. She further added in her letter as hereunder :-
"Your letter is uncalled for and should be withdrawn. I have been working in this Hospital since May 10, 1978 and have always worked in the best interest of the patients. It is tragic instead of taking a lenient view of my sickness you have opted to punish me.
If the foregoing is not acceptable to you then I have no option left but to render my resignation with immediate effect."
(3.)Thereupon, by an Order dated 9-1-1999, the appellant was informed that the suspension order could not be withdrawn since her explanation was not found to be satisfactory. A separate order dated 9-1-1999 was also said to have been passed as hereunder : "Reference is invited to letter dated 9-1-1999 of Dr. Prabha Atri, Anaesthetist, vide which she has submitted her resignation....... is accepted with immediate effect as requested. Dr. P. Atri is advised to submit No Dues Certificate as per Hospital Service Rule so that her terminal benefits may be processed for payment".
(2.)The appellant, who was working as Anaesthetist in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad, was issued with a Memo dated 5-1-1999, bringing to her notice a lapse in that she left without informing even Dr. Banerjee, when he requested her around 1300 hrs. to give anaesthesis to one patient admitted in emergency with shock due to ruptured uterus, which needed urgent operation, and such conduct not only amounted to negligence as per Hospital Service Rule 10(i) but also was against medical ethics. She was also asked to submit her explanation by 5.00 p.m. on 6-1-1999, failing which it would be taken that she accepted the lapse and the Hospital would be at liberty to proceed against her as per Service Rules. Since the appellant did not respond, on 8-1-1999 the appellant was placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending institution of a domestic enquiry pertaining to the above incident. On receipt of the said Memo on 9-1-1999, the appellant replied to the Secretary of the Hospital that she had already clarified her position verbally in his presence that on that day she was sick and very tired, that Dr. Navneeta Banerjee also denied having made any complaint as such except writing for purposes of record about the incident and that formal reply in writing was not sent since she had already explained the position and nothing more was required. She further added in her letter as hereunder :-
"Your letter is uncalled for and should be withdrawn. I have been working in this Hospital since May 10, 1978 and have always worked in the best interest of the patients. It is tragic instead of taking a lenient view of my sickness you have opted to punish me.
If the foregoing is not acceptable to you then I have no option left but to render my resignation with immediate effect."
(3.)Thereupon, by an Order dated 9-1-1999, the appellant was informed that the suspension order could not be withdrawn since her explanation was not found to be satisfactory. A separate order dated 9-1-1999 was also said to have been passed as hereunder : "Reference is invited to letter dated 9-1-1999 of Dr. Prabha Atri, Anaesthetist, vide which she has submitted her resignation....... is accepted with immediate effect as requested. Dr. P. Atri is advised to submit No Dues Certificate as per Hospital Service Rule so that her terminal benefits may be processed for payment".
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.