- (1.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 15.02.2003 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Director of the respondent-institute whereby, his representation dated 07.09.1993 was rejected. It was held that his services were dispensed with on 15.06.1991 and his name had been struck off the rolls and he had to complete his residency of M.S. Ophthalmology examination on 30.06.1991. Therefore, he had not completed the full period of residency. Resultantly, his result was not declared and the certificate was not issued to him on the ground that rules governing examinations do not permit as such declaration of result without completing the full period of residency of 3 years.
(2.) The reasoning given in the said order seems to be based on a wrong premise that the services were dispensed with on 15.06.1991 in view of the fact that there was a string of litigation which will be referred to as below. The above said order, thus, cannot be justified since inter se parties, relief has been granted to the petitioner that the order of dispensing with the services was to be w.e.f. 10.12.1992. The facts which need consideration are that the petitioner was selected in May, 1988 as a junior resident for the course of Master in Surgery in Ophthalmology, which was to commence on 01.07.1988. The course was of a duration of 3 academic years i.e. 6 sessions as per the agreement inter se the parties (Annexure P-2). As per the agreement also, the course was for a period of 3 years commencing from the 1st day of July, 1988 and would thus terminate on 30.06.1991. The case of the petitioner is that the course was completed on 15.05.1991 as per the circular (Annexure P-4) when the training programme for the post graduate course of Ophthalmology was completed from 01.01.1991 to 15.05.1991.
(3.) The petitioner was involved in an incident of molestation of a patient on 06.06.1991, due to which a complaint was received on 10.06.1991. After holding a regular inquiry, the Director of the respondentinstitute came to the conclusion that he had committed an act of gross misconduct of violating the modesty of a young woman patient which is unworthy of a member of the medical profession and his conduct was highly reprehensible. Accordingly, two punishments were imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 10.12.1992 (Annexure P-6). One of termination of service as a junior resident w.e.f. 15.06.1991 and secondly, he would not be eligible to apply for any post or for admission to any course of the institute. The relevant portion reads thus:- "The undersigned therefore terminates the service of said Dr. Parveen Kumar Mongre as Junior Resident in the Department of Ophthalmology of this institute w.e.f. 15.6.91. It is also ordered that Dr. Mongre shall not be eligible for any post or for admission to any course of the institute.";