ORDER
Chitra Chopra, Member (A)
1. By this O.A. the applicant Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma has sought the following main reliefs:
(a) direct the respondents not to harass him for lodging complaints against them.
(b) direct the respondents not to consider him for out station touring work in view of his ill health.
(c) direct the respondents to regularize two spells of leave taken by him between the period from 21.12.2004 to 02.03.2005.
(d) direct the respondents to consider his period of leave as duty with full wages.
2. The facts of the case briefly are as under:
The applicant is an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India and is presently posted in the Internal Audit Wing of the said Ministry. He joined here after having been transferred from Ministry of Urban Development on 24.08.2004. It is his contention that due to pre-conceived bias by the respondents, particularly, Sh. Manoj Sethi, the then Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Urban Development, the respondents No. 3 & 5 have posted the applicant in a touring job despite knowing the fact that he is a chronic patient of Pancreatitis and liver for the last fifteen years. Due to his medical condition, he could not undertake out station tour and represented to this effect. In response to this, the respondents directed him vide Office Order dated 02.11.2004 (Annexure A/1) to undergo medical examination. He challenged the rule under which he was asked to undergo medical examination and represented against the same. However, the respondents again vide letter dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure A/2) addressed to the Medical Superintendent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital directed him to appear for medical examination with a view to ascertain the extent of his ailment of etc. As the applicant still did not appear in R.M.L. Hospital, another Office Order No. 233 dated 14.01.2005 (Annexure A/3) was issued directing him once again to appear before Dr. R.K. Dudeja, Senior Physician, Dr. R.M.L. Hospital on 19.01.2005. Again the applicant did not appear but represented, questioning that the direction to appear for medical examination is not in accordance with the rules.
3. He also represented for payment of his salary for the period that he had remained absent.
4. In the counter-affidavit, learned Counsel for respondents, Sh. H.K. Gangwani has submitted that the applicant is in the habit of making repeated representations as well as false complaints against his superior officers. In Para 4.2 of the counter it has been averred that the applicant by his own admission has stated that he had non-cordial relations with his superiors in the Ministry of Urban Development. He, on these grounds, requested for transfer and was transferred to the office of Ex-Engineer, CPWD, ED-IV Division from where again due to complaint and counter complaints, he was transferred to Hudco Project Division, CPWD w.e.f. 29.3.2002.
5. As regards his present assignment, it has been submitted by Shri H.K. Gangwani that being posted in Internal Audit Wing of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, the applicant was required to follow schedule of audit programme in different offices. But after receiving the schedule, he submitted his representation dated 8.9.2004 without any supporting medical certificate from Government Hospital/CGHS dispensary seeking exemption from outstation audit on the ground that he is suffering from incurable Pancreatitis medical problem. It was on these grounds that it was felt necessary to refer him for medical examination to the Senior Physician of RML Hospital but despite having been given two opportunities, he did not present himself for medical examination on the appointed date, time and venue and instead abstained from Government duty unauthorisedly and remained absent without sanction of any kind of leave from 15.12.2004 till date. He also did not attend the Scheduled Audit Programmes or respond to the Office Memo dated 25.1.2005 issued to him to resume duty.
6. Shri H.K. Gangwani, learned Counsel has also submitted in response to Para 7 of the OA that the applicant had in fact filed a Civil Suit in the Hon’ble Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi for damages against the Chief Controller of Accounts and Principal Accounts Officer of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. The suit was dismissed by the Court vide its order dated 8.8.2005 (Annexure-III).
7. We also find the applicant had recently filed OA-600/2006 wherein he had challenged initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him. The Tribunal vide its order dated 14.08.2006 (Annexure-B of brief argument of the applicant) asked the applicant to undergo medical examination and observed as under:
5. On careful consideration of the rival contentions and on perusal of the record, due to the ailment of the applicant and his ground for illness which pertains to chronic pancrititis, the respondents in order to verify and to ascertain under Rule 19 (5) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, had asked the applicant to undergo medical examination not for any mental condition or to ascertain where he is of unsound mind or not but with a view to ascertain about his ailment. The same has been foiled by the applicant without any basis on the assumption that by virtue of the medical examination, he would be retired on medical grounds.
6. As the records speak that the only purpose of medical examination is to ascertain the ground of illness of the applicant and his absence thereof. This plea of the applicant cannot be countenanced. However, we find that the applicant who has grievance that whenever he report for duties, he has been denied by the respondents.
xxxxx
8. We also direct the applicant that, in the event, the applicant is directed to undergo medical examination to verify the genuineness of his medical grounds for illness, he shall with utmost cooperation shall join the Medical Board. Till then the proceedings initiated against him shall not be continued. The same would be resumed only after the report of the medical examination is available to the respondents.
8. We have heard the pleadings of both parties and have perused the material placed on record.
9. We find that the crux of the matter is the applicant’s contention that he is suffering from acute Pancrreatitis due to which he cannot undertake outstation touring duties and that the respondents need to have his medical condition ascertained so that they can take an appropriate view on his contention. There is no doubt about the rule position in this regard. In so far as getting a medical condition confirmed by a medical examination, any claim by a Government servant that he is suffering from particular ailment would, in fairness to him as well as to the authorities, need to be confirmed by competent medical opinion. In this view of the matter, we find no harassment to the applicant by the respondents in directing him to appear for medical examination.
10. During the course of hearing, it was put to the applicant as to why he has not appeared for medical examination despite twice being directed. The applicant, who was present in person, responded that he is willing to undergo the medical examination. It was put to the applicant to indicate a specific date when he would conveniently be able to appear before the Medical Board. He agreed to appear before the Medical Board on 25.09.2006 at 11.30 A.M. and is accordingly directed to appear on the said date and time. This was also agreed to by the respondents. Shri Gangwani undertook to convey this to the concerned authorities. With this direction, the present Original Application is disposed of. No costs.