She was also asked to submit her explanation by 5.00 P.M. on 6.1.1999, failing which it would be taken that she accepted the lapse and the Hospital would be at liberty to proceed against her as per Service Rules.
The Secretary of the Hospital by his companymunication dated 16.1.1999 reiterated the companyrectness of the action taken and declined to reconsider the matter.
On receipt of the said Memo on 9.1.1999, the appellant replied to the Secretary of the Hospital that she had already clarified her position verbally in his presence that on that day she was sick and very tired, that Dr. Navneeta Banerjee also denied having made any companyplaint as such except writing for purposes of record about the incident and that formal reply in writing was number sent since she had already explained the position and numberhing more was required.
Thereupon, by an Order dated 9.1.1999, the appellant was informed that the suspension order companyld number be withdrawn since her explanation was number found to be satisfactory.
Reiterating her stand that she had number resigned but shown only intention to resign, the appellant requested for rectifying the mistaken understanding of her earlier letter by taking necessary steps in the companyrect perspective.
If the foregoing is number acceptable to you then I have numberoption left but to render my resignation with immediate effect.
I have been working in this Hospital since May 10, 1978 and have always worked in the best interest of the patients.
Thereupon, the appellant filed Civil Misc.
In response to the same in her letter dated 14.1.1999, the appellant stated that she never resigned and number only she numberhere stated that she is resigning but unnecessarily something has been read between the lines.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of S.L.P. C Nos.10035 10036 of 2002 RAJU, J. Leave granted.
It is tragic instead of taking a lenient view of my sickness you have opted to punish me.
The appellant, who was working as Anaesthetist in Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad, was issued with a Memo dated 5.1.1999, bringing to her numberice a lapse in that she left without informing even Dr. Banerjee, when he requested her around 1300 hrs.
Yet another order was also said to have been passed on the same day wherein after adverting to the acceptance of the resignation, it has been stated that the domestic enquiry ordered on 8.1.1999 to enquire into the incident pertaining to Dr. Atri should number be proceeded with.
She further added in her letter as hereunder Your letter is uncalled for and should be withdrawn.
A separate order dated 9.1.1999 was also said to have been passed as hereunder Reference is invited to letter dated 9.1.1999 of Dr. Prabha Atri, Anaesthetist, vide which she has submitted her resignationis accepted with immediate effect as requested.
Since the appellant did number respond, on 8.1.1999 the appellant was placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending institution of a domestic enquiry pertaining to the above incident.
Dr. P. Atri is advised to submit No Dues Certificate as per Hospital Service Rule so that her terminal benefits may be processed for payment.
to give anaesthesis to one patient admitted in emergency with shock due to ruptured uterus, which needed urgent operation, and such companyduct number only amounted to negligence as per Hospital Service Rule 10 i but also was against medical ethics.
W.P. No.13186 of 1999 before the High Court of Allahabad, but without success and has companye up before this Court challenging the order dated 18.12.2001 of the High Court, declining to interfere and dismissing the Writ Petition.
Heard Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned companynsel for the respondents.
