1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This petitioner joined cantonment service as a Medical Officer on 8th May, 1974. He also accepted an appointment under the Railways as a part‑time doctor in the railway hospital at Shorkot. The Director Military Lands and Cantonment asked the petitioner to discontinue the part‑time employment as it was in violation of the terms and conditions of the employment of the petitioner in the cantonment service. The peti tioner did not do so and was charge‑sheeted for misconduct and after being found guilty was removed from service on 12th April, 1982. He went in revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Defence but the revision petition was dismissed on 10th May, 1983. The petitioner has challenged the orders of his removal from service on the ground that he was allowed private practice under the instructions issued by the Cantonment Depart ment and that his part‑time employment with the railway was in the nature of private practice and did not violate any of the rules of his service under the Cantonment Department. It is also contended on behalf of the peti tioner that the action of removal from service is mala fide as the Director; Military Lands and Cantonment had a personal animus against the peti tioner as he obtained cancellation of orders of transfer to Quetta through a representation made to Secretary, Ministry of Defence.

2. It is true that the petitioner was transferred to Quetta in 1979 against which he filed a representation which was accepted by Secretary, Ministry of Defence and his transfer was cancelled but whether this is the reason why the petitioner is being proceeded against for misconduct is, however, a different story. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence came to the rescue of the petitioner when he was transferred to Quetta but he rejected his revision petition when he was removed from service. Similarly the petitioner was recommended for dismissal from service but the Director, Military Lands and Cantonment took a lenient view and ordered only removal of the petitioner from service. These developments do not show any animus against the petitioner. On the contrary this shows compas sion. Even otherwise it was for the petitioner to show that the respondents were acting mala fide against him and in this regard he has shown nothing except that the orders of transfer to Quetta were cancelled by the orders of Secretary, Ministry of Defence. This, to my mind, is an ordinary incident of service and cannot be termed as a ground sufficient to create a personal animus in the mind of the Director. 3: The more important question in this case, however, is whether part‑dime employment by a Doctor is the same thing as a private practice which is otherwise allowed to him. To my mind in the case of usual private practice, without involving any employment, the practitioner remains master of his own time while in an employment, even though it is only part‑time, the Doctor places himself under the control of another authority. The permission to have private practice therefore cannot be stretched to the extent of accepting a part‑time employment by a Doctor. This will clearly be in violation of the terms of service, which the petitioner has in the Cantonment Department and a charge of misconduct could, therefore, be sustained against the petitioner under these circumstances.

4. The respondents asked the petitioner to discontinue the part‑time employment. His refusal to do so will also expose the petitioner to a departmental action. The findings of the Enquiry Officer which were subsequently confirmed by the competent authority are, therefore, not illegal. The action against the petitioner of removal from service is in accordance with the law applicable to the petitioner's service. There is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. A. E. Petition dismissed.