Bombay HC Quashes Tribunal Order Reinstating Doctor Dismissed For Drug Misappropriation
The Bombay High Court has set aside an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that had reinstated a doctor dismissed from service in 1991 in alleged drug misappropriation case, observing that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing a review on “simplistic” grounds.
A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Milind Sathaye allowed a plea by the Maharashtra government challenging the tribunal’s April 29, 2011 order in favour of Dr Aruna Katke. The tribunal had allowed her review application, setting aside her dismissal and directing her reinstatement with limited back wages, holding that she had been discriminated against when compared to co-delinquents.
Dr Katke, a temporary Medical Officer at the ESIS Dispensary in Vile Parle, was suspended in 1991 after an audit revealed misappropriation and shortage of drugs. A departmental enquiry (DE) was initiated, culminating in her dismissal in 2001 for misappropriation of drugs worth Rs. 50,837.
She challenged her dismissal before the tribunal, which dismissed her plea. However, in review, the tribunal reversed its earlier decision, citing disparity in punishment. It noted that while she was dismissed, others involved in the joint enquiry – including a nurse and compounder – were merely penalised with a 5% pay cut.
The State argued that the tribunal erred in allowing review, as it had already considered the issue of parity earlier. Additional government pleader NC Walimbe submitted that the respondent, being a doctor, had higher responsibility compared to the compounder and nurse.
The HC noted that both Dr Katke and her co-delinquent, also a doctor, were dismissed from service, indicating parity in treatment. “ The responsibility of a doctor in the hospital and the responsibility of the compounder and nurse are clearly distinct and therefore the gravity of misconduct is also different,” the court observed in its order on April 30.
It added that the tribunal failed to consider this aspect of parity in punishment between delinquents, namely two doctors and difference of responsibility and gravity of misconduct.
Holding that the tribunal “exceeded the scope of review jurisdiction,” the bench quashed the tribunal’s order. “On a simplistic approach that in a common enquiry only the respondent was dismissed, the review seems to have been allowed,” it said.
news