Uttar Pradesh: Allahabad HC seeks government’s response on Dr Kafeel’s writ petition against his suspension. Allahabad News – Times of India

PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court On a writ petition filed by, the counsel for the Government of Uttar Pradesh (UP) has been directed to take instructions (information) from the State Government. Dr Kafeel Ahmad Khanchallenge his suspension from BRD Medical College, Gorakhpur.
Dr Kafeel was suspended from service from BRD Medical College on August 22, 2017 after nearly 60 infants died in the hospital due to lack of oxygen.
Justice while hearing Dr Kafeel’s petition Yashwant Verma On July 29, it directed to list the matter for next hearing on August 5.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner Dr Kafeel has challenged the order of suspension dated 22 August 2017. An additional challenge is also given to the order dated February 24, 2020 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which, while accepting the report submitted, partly disagreed with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the two charges and further investigation. instructed to do.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing a writ (No.3511 of 2019) on the ground that though he was suspended in the year 2017, the investigation proceedings would not be concluded till the filing of that petition. Had happened.
Acting on this writ petition, the court, by an order dated March 7, 2019, disposed of the writ petition with directions to the respondents to complete the investigation within three months. Pursuant to that direction of the High Court, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on April 15, 2019. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority decided to pass the order under challenge after about 11 months.
Taking note of this, the court observed, “The delay in taking further action on the part of the disciplinary authority is not explained. The Respondents are also bound to justify the continuance of the order of suspension which has been in force for more than four years.
It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that at least eight persons were suspended along with him in this oxygen deficiency case, but all were reinstated except the petitioner.

.

Leave a Reply