Vyanketesh Timmappa Anchinmane v. The Andaman And Nicobar Administration And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/482/2024 Dr.Vyanketesh Timmappa Anchinmane Vs.

The Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioner Ms. Babita Das ... for the respondent no.1 Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents December 02, 2024 [SR] Item no.20 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the show cause notice issued to him on 11.09.2024. The show cause notice relates to three separate complaints made by separate persons. 2.

The first grievance relates to a complaint from one Dr. Prabhu Gouda, Senior Resident (Pathology). The petitioner submits that the aforesaid Dr. Prabhu Gouda is working under him. The petitioner lodged a complaint against the said Dr. Prabhu Gouda before the Director, ANIIMS by way of a confidential communication on 20.07.2024. The authority, instead of consideration of the communication made by the petitioner, issued the show cause notice against him relying upon the complaint from the said Dr. Prabhu Gouda. 3.

The impugned show cause notice also mentions about the complaint from one Dr. Jagadish Kamal Chander, Associate Professor (Forensic Medicine). The petitioner submits that the complaint of the said Dr. Jagadish Kamal Chander is absolutely

vague. There is neither any date nor the details of the incident complained of and no step can be taken relying on the same. 4.

The third grievance is with regard to email communication from the External Examiner, Pondicherry (April 2024 University Examination). According to the petitioner, the remuneration of the examiners were paid prior to issuance of the show cause notice. The authority, instead of verifying the documents, had issued the show cause notice only with the sole intention of dismissing the petitioner from service who is a contractual employee.

5.

With the leave of the Court, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing documents which he intends to rely in response to the show cause notice which has been issued.

6.

The Court, at the show cause stage, usually does not entertain petitions because the show cause is not a penalty against the employee. The show cause notice is merely an opportunity given to the employee to produce documents in his/her support to defend his/her stand apropos the allegation levelled against him/her.

7.

In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner has documents in support of his stand. The petitioner is aggrieved as only one show cause notice was issued by clubbing three different grievances from three different persons and only five days were given to submit reply. By now, the petitioner has got enough time to submit reply to the authority. 8.

Accordingly, the petitioner is granted leave to respond to the show cause notice by producing all documents before the

authority in support of his stand at the earliest but positively by 12.12.2024. The authority shall give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of hearing.

9.

It will be open for the petitioner to raise all issues and make submission and rely upon all documents in his support. 10.

At the time of hearing the petitioner with regard to the complaint made by Dr. Prabhu Gouda, the authority shall consider the communication made by the petitioner against the aforesaid person on 20.07.2024.

11.

In the event any adverse order is passed, the same shall not be given any effect for a fortnight from the date of communication of the said order.

12.

The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 13.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Amrita Sinha, J. )