MAT quashes railway CP’s order suspending a staff nurse

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal MAT has recently quashed an order of the Commissioner of Police Railways suspending a public health nursing staff for alleged negligence while administering saline to a patient The tribunal accepted the nursersquos argument that as she was appointed by the deputy director of health services the power to suspend her also vests with the same authority and not with the CP RailwaysThe nurse attached to the railway police dispensary at Ghatkopar East has claimed that her suspension was the result of her pointing out the wrongdoings of the doctor in charge of the dispensary to the deputy director of health services Her advocate Rajeshwar Panchal confirmed her claims and is in possession of the complaint lettersThe caseThe nurse Ranjana Kadam a 40yearold resident of Kamothe in Panvel was appointed as a staff nurse by the deputy director health services Mumbai on December 3 2005 Kadam was later transferred to the railway hospital dispensary on May 31 2017 following which she was given a posting at the Ghatkopar dispensary on December 18 2017Later on February 16 2022 CP Railways Kaisar Khalid suspended Kadam alleging negligence while administering saline to a patient The suspension order was issued following a departmental enquiry DE invoking Rule 41a of DampA Rules of 1979Kadam through her advocate challenged the order on the grounds of competency contending that as her appointing authority is the deputy director health services the suspension order issued by the CP Railways was not validThe argumentPanchal said ldquoThe staff nurse upon receiving the suspension order immediately informed her appointing authority and sought intervention However since there was no immediate intervention she approached me to move the MAT MAT had stayed the order of suspension on the first day of the matter being taken on board in March pending trialrdquoMeanwhile A B Kololgi the presenting officer sought to justify the suspension order saying that as the applicant Kadam is working in the hospital controlled and managed by the CP Railway he is competent to suspend her Kololgi also said that as the deputy commissioner of policesuperintendent of police is the appointing authority for all Class lsquoCrsquo posts in the police department therefore they also are the disciplinary authority for the staff nurseMAT observationAs per the MAT order after the conclusion of the trial which was passed on September 14 and uploaded on Monday Section 41 of DampA Rules of 1979 states that the suspension powers are vested with the appointing authority ldquoThere is no denying that in the present case the appointing authority of the applicant is deputy director health services and she was transferred by the deputy director health services vide its order dated May 1 2017 in railway hospital dispensary As such it is a transfer order and not a deputation order Respondent no 3 CPRailway in his affidavitinreply admitted that the applicant is not working on deputationrdquoIt further read ldquoIt is only in cases where the service of a government servant is lent by one department to another on deputation in that event only the borrowing authority shall have the powers of appointing authority in the matter of disciplinary actionrdquoldquoThis being the position the order of suspension issued by the Police Commissioner Railway will have to be held without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law Therefore the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed on the point of competencyrdquo the MAT heldApplicantSpeakKadam who is keen to resume duty said ldquoI am happy with the verdict I always knew the truth would stand beside me I have not done anything wrong my only sin is that I am a whistleblower and raised my concerns about wrong happenings in the railway police dispensary Instead of them applauding me I was victimisedrdquoldquoMAT in its recent order held that the suspension was done without jurisdiction by the CP Railway and quashed the suspension What the alleged lsquomisconductrsquo is has to be examined by the appointing authority as defined in the rules concernedrdquo advocate Panchal concluded14Day in September when MAT passed the order