Mcd v. Pamela Walia

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

APRIL 08, 2010

ANIL KUMAR, J. 'anb'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C.) No.2290/2010 % Date of Decision: 08.04.2010 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI …. PETITIONER Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel with Mr. Alok Singh, Advocate Versus DR.(MRS.) PAMELA WALIA ….RESPONDENT Through Dr. Pamela Walia, respondent/caveator in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No : MOOL CHAND GARG, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the MCD assailing the order dated 12.05.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") whereby the T.A. No.610/2009 filed by the respondent, Dr. (Mrs.) Pamela Walia has been allowed. 2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the filing of the petition are that the respondent who is a doctor and was working as General Duty Officer, Grade-II had been posted in October, 1986 for looking after the work of two maternity establishments viz., Dev Nagar, Maternity Centre and Narela Maternity Home, in addition to that she was also to attend the Anganwadi Center near Narela. Vide order dated 14.10.1991, a penalty was imposed against the respondent whereby her four annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect on the allegations that she had committed gross misconduct and failed to maintain devotion to duty inasmuch as she showed negligence towards duty which resulted in causing the death of a patient on 23.10.1996 admitted in the maternity home. 3. The crux of the allegations leveled against the respondent is that one Murti Devi from Nai Basti, Mamurpur, Narela was admitted in the Hospital at 2:00 pm on 22.10.1986. She gave delivery to a child at 3:00 pm. The delivery was attended to by the midwife and supporting staff. During the night, the patient had complained of pain in the abdomen. On the following day when the respondent came on duty at about 9:30 am, she was apprised about these details. She went to the ward, examined the patient and recommended an injection of Stemetil and simultaneously referred the lady to Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for expert care and thereafter she went to Anganwadi Center. She came back around 12:00 noon by that time, the patient had expired. 4. According to the chargesheet issued to the respondent, it was alleged that instead of making arrangements for sending the patient to Kasturba Gandhi Hospital, she had gone to Anganwadi Center without caring to see whether intravenous drips had been administered upon the patient or not. It has, thus, been alleged that negligence could be spelt in the matter of discharge of her duty which, ultimately resulted in the death of a patient. The charge memo also accused her with the allegation that she did not ensure procurement of an ambulance so as to send the patient over to Kasturba Gandhi Hospital or not. 5. It is a matter of record that the inquiry officer has held the respondent guilty of negligence only to the extent that she had not ensured administration of intravenous drips to the patient only on the basis of her statement made before an inquiry committee. There is nothing in the evidence to show that the death of the patient has been caused because of non-administration of intravenous drips. Even though it is her case that she was forced to make such statement because of rush of public at that time. Admittedly, no post mortem has been conducted on the body of the deceased. 6. As stated above the disciplinary authority, i.e., the Commissioner, MCD imposed a penalty upon respondent withholding her four annual increments with cumulative effect. An appeal was filed by the respondent challenging the penalty but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 01.09.1992. 7. Against the order imposing the penalty and dismissing the appeal, the respon