^ % IN THE mGH GQUR'^ OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl VK. P. N0. li.GOOF2004 PETITIONER ^ <lp'^•y^ Dr. Ai-un Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Hazari Lal Agrawal Aged about 43 years, Occupation —Service, Presently posted and working as Gynecologist & Medical Supenntendent at Central HoS'pitaI, South E^stem CoalBleds Limited, ManendragaEh Distriet Korea ^ehhatfisgarh] VERSXTS RESPONDENT The Gollector, Bistrict Surguja [Ambikapur] '[Chhattisgarh] WRIT PETITION U1IDER AR'EIGLE '226 QF THE CONSTITirN© OF'3Nin»BBi@IffiISSB3CTC^}3E)R^1^ NATURE -OF. ®ERTffliQRaBBffiKJl!liflMliflaUSlMRSHI^a'I©N AND^<n^E]Et«iBEi§iiiigSi^ii^:i?lHis.i® Ty BC'n0tiS.f<:3tKBERs^iS'CSSWERS: :::.::'"::: •; S^\^A- 'y'^-^ '••^^>% 1 ^ w.a.-#3-w. s.s 3 •<»rt 0)»<<! ^il. sss^'^ W'IS:IS:Q o R-t's 8 £e-..li; C' 'G.S irlie §.•§•&8° g-i illE §s's-> "o . _ y ff) p3 S 1 & w & Qc fT~l l-l^ 1-t g§.l c5@l. co > ? ^(So' 2.1 i ^ 5' 5^ ^ ""E.^ t y § 10 10 IQ•q M |S! 1 1i p > Ipt IS II> 1'^ ws & 130 ^ XI-HC-78 ITOW^TT^ ViWj "qiqiWq, U>-(?|i!-l<l(»,{qrtlt-I^ .^;.R...J.t<'Q.............. 3II$?I'CTR'<i<b ?raT3IT^CTri)<fl* •Ut 8n^?Tqaq;(4<fi'j«i'y) W[2M^ 29.09.2005 Shri Ashish Shriv. Slui Saajay S. respondents No. 1 and Shri A.K. Prasad, Heard. Adrawal The petitioner, Superinteadent at Coalfields Ltd., challenging the order CoUector, Siu^uja 121/2002-2003. The fhe CoUector, Surguja careless and negl^ent i4 it resulted into death Gf The facts of the c, No. 3 was admitted te Regional Hospital, Vishl on check up, it was <niiiIn<Tl*i iifCTl'^'I^A •((utyi'f ^3iR)4iairt?T stava, counsel for fhe petitioner. rawal, Govenunent Advocate for fhe ounsel for the respondent No. 3 who is worldng as Medical Hospital of South Eastem i, has ffled this petition dated 27.01.2003 passed by the |, in RevenueCaseNo. 158/B- ipondent No. 3 made a complaint to (Ainbikapur) fhat fhe petitioner was treating wife of the coaiplaiaant, and biswife. CAitral Manetidragarh, (Amb|ikapiir) rts ;4se are that fhe wife of fhe respondent the South Easteru CoatfieMs Ltd., jampur on 27.05.2002 at 10.00 a.m., foj.md that some serious complications XI-HC-78 ywi'^tliyil'iy, yTilfl<is,ftrti'«y qra^T^qf^ •^"s""^" •• - ^200^ an^srqaq? (>jplgq<s) sii^ngiiR-ii* ?raTanSaTtpira> gftfISR'Hf^TSD^W 2 had arisea, as such thc| Hospital. Ambikapur, it4n at 7.05 p.m. on 28.05.: The respondent N<)>. that his wife had dield mtinediately, 2002. treatment by the petitio^ The respondent through Naib TahsUdait enqufiy Sui^uja. In the petitioner aad the petitii enquiry the Naib 14.10.2002 to fhe Sub that the coinplauit inad( any basis and on aGcoutit was forwarded to fhe C<i wifh fhe enqiuiy report records and examiaei coinplainant but no no1 enquiry, he foiiiid tha' <ttl*l(ri4)-l ifWrtTfffa^ <Rl^l'( ^af^Tan^n case was referred to ftie Holy Cross nediately, at 4 o'clcx;k. She had died 3 niade a coinplauit to the CoUectof due to the negl^ence and mal a~. • . • . Tabsildar, fio. 1 got the eaquuy conducted Pilkha Kshetra, Tahsil Soorajpur, proper notice was given to the >ner participated in fhe enquity. On jisUdar, submitted his report on pivisional OfBcer, Sobrajpur, Ildlding against the petitioner was wifhout ofpersonal animosity. The report pector and the CoUector disagreeiiig |of fhe Naib Tahsildar, caUed for fhe the Enquuy Of&cer and fhe |ce was given to fhe petitioner. On fhe petitioner was negligent and ^^^ XI-HC-78 ^cET ^<14iwy, yTTI<i<id, ftrtmy wr^i^m^ ,S^.;.P-...l..l.<ro. an^^TWTR'ii* aanan^OTaiqto an^St q3?'(^ql3<si<8) ^200^ g'RiTW^rilasn^sT —3 careless in treating, complainaat and recj Coalfields Ltd., for agamst him- It was respondent No. 3 ws court/consuxner foirun ^ Learaed counsel taljing futtiier CoUector has Gouductcld notice or intimation tol violatipn of fhe prmci^fc agaiast the petitioner Soufh Eastem Coalfieldls add against the petitioner to inove the court/| compensation. The South Easterfa eiuto petitioner, as he was Ltd. On examiaation o <B14fri4l'< f!HAl't"l«<^TRi>x%'< ^af^1SJrt«T Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of fhe immended to tfae South Eastem appropriate disciplinaiy enquiiy observed that the coniplainant/ ^s at Uberly to inove appropriate |br compensation. |for the petitioner submits that the tfae enquiiy without issiung any fhe petitioner. There was a elear ;s of natyral justice wlule holding ^nd inaldag reconuaendation to fhe Ltd., for taking discipliaaiy action graating Uberty to the coinplainaat ;onsumer fonun for appropriate Coalfields Ltd., after receiving the order ofthe CoBector dated 27.01.2003 issued a notice to the iloyee ofthe South.Easteru Coalfields reply, fhe South Eastem Coalfields 1 1 XI-HC-78 vs-vq'^iiwwv, u>-ri1<i<is,ftrti'(i3<< *11H<ftO?'Tfq» .y.^....tj.67?. ^F^2QO+ 3ii^n<RTR-ii<b ^aiisirSwdiii'b ft II W^ST1WS (<jtifj<s|<Ei) ffRHWCTl^T 3II^?r 4- la|pse Ltd., did not find any Arun Agrawal and as SVL\ aay disciplinary proceepni dated 23.03.2004 (Aime^ur In. view ofthe facN South Eastera Coal&eld^ any dteciplinary proc^ed exaDiming the reply of\ opiuion that goiag iatcj principles ofnaturaljustice it is observed tbat if in basis of the order of fhfc the petitioner, the and hearing as the ordei| after giving appropriate Inview ofthe <ni«{o»AitiiCTYtt'fs^xRntCK ?>3l1^T3lrt?I on the part of the petitioner, Dr. i^h no case was niade out for uutiating ;e^ling against the petttioner'by order e^ure P-7). and circumstances ofthe case, when Ltd., itselfhas decided not to iiuttate c^ediag agaiast the petitioner, on fhe petitioner; this court is of the the controversy of violation of the sfice, is acadeinic at present However, jfuture any action is proposed ou the CoUector dated 27.01.2003 against woutd be eritiUed to fi-esh notice petitjioner passed by the CoHector is notpassed ^totice to tfae petitioner. the petition. stands disposed of. fore^oing, SA'- Satish K. Agcihotri Judge ,E/