In a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the petitioner’s No Objection Certificate (NOC) being withheld on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, a Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor allowed the petition while imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the State and directed them to issue said NOC to the petitioner.

The petitioner was a Casualty Medical Officer working with the Government of Haryana. He had secured sufficient marks to attain admission in a post-graduate course. However, to apply as an in-service candidate, he required an NOC from the State, which was withheld due to pending disciplinary proceedings against him.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was on duty in the emergency ward of a government hospital when a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) visited the hospital. The MLA became annoyed since the petitioner did not rise upon his arrival, and a show-cause notice was issued against him for a minor punishment to be imposed under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (Rules).

The petitioner replied, submitting that he did not recognize the MLA and that his failure to rise was not an act of discourtesy, as the same was unintentional. However, a final order had not been passed in this regard.

The Court was anguished and amazed that a show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner only because he did not rise upon the MLA’s arrival, and noted that the petitioner’s explanation that he failed to recognize the MLA had been completely ignored. The Court found it insensitive of the State to proceed against the petitioner on such a charge and said that it would be arbitrary to deny the petitioner the right to pursue higher education by withholding the NOC because of the pendency of the show-cause notice.

The Court stated that it is well known that medical courses require dedication and commitment over prolonged periods, and that public representatives, along with others, must respect such dedicated professionals. The Court noted newspaper reports regarding medical professionals being ill-treated by relatives of patients or public representatives without a valid cause.

Further, it was stated that it would be wholly unjust and manifestly arbitrary to allow an adverse action against a doctor merely because he did not rise upon an MLA’s arrival. Therefore, it was held that keeping the proceedings pending for years and denying the petitioner an NOC cannot be sustained.

Thus, while allowing the petition, the State was directed to issue NOC to the petitioner and to deposit Rs. 50,000/- with ‘Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh’ as costs.

Appearances:

For Petitioner – Mr. Ankit Chahal

For Respondents – Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Ms. Nihar Bala, Ms. Sunanda Rani, Mr. H.S. Gill