Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAVI MALIMATH, S.G. PANDIT, JJ.
Dr. K. Lalitha Wife of Sri. M C Venkatesh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.20182 of 2015 (GM-KLA)
Decided On : 05-04-2019
Constitution of India,1950 - Article , 226 - Karnataka Act, 1984 - Section 12 - Karnataka Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules1957 - Rule 14 - Investigation - Death of child - Petitioner is General Duty Medical Officer in respondent –Bangalore - During year petitioner was working as Pediatrician in Hospital - Petitioner was allotted quarters attached to Maternity Corporation Hospital with condition that she has to attend emergency cases during night hours - It is stated at about - She received urgent call from staff Maternity Corporation Hospital and she rushed to attend patient in said hospital - Said patient had just given birth to female still born baby – Held, Case on hand on going through report Section Act Annexure it is seen that no material appears to have been considered by while preparing report - Report would not indicate consideration of reply submitted by delinquent officials including petitioner - What are materials on which Section report is submitted is not forthcoming from report - Perusal of order passed by State Government Section Act Annexure it is clear that it is also as bad as Annexure report - Section makes it mandatory for Competent Authority to examine report forwarded - Order would not indicate consideration of material such as relevant documents materials and other evidence forwarded to of Section Act - Order would only state that Government has received report from recommending to initiate departmental enquiry and hence Government is referring matter Rule Karnataka Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules for enquiry - Order passed Section Act also would not indicate consideration of materials – Petition allowed
ORDER :
S.G. PANDIT, J.
Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:
(ii) To quash the and Articles of charges issued by the 4th respondent bearing no.LOK/INQ/14-A/281/2013 dated 14.8.2013, vide Annexure-R.”
2. The petitioner is a General Duty Medical Officer in the 2nd respondent – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘the BBMP’). During the year 2006 the petitioner was working as Pediatrician in the Hosahalli Refferral Hospital. The petitioner was allotted quarters attached to the Rajajinagar Maternity Corporation Hospital with a condition that she has to attend the emergency cases during the night hours. It is stated that on 20.05.2008 at about 8.05 a.m. she received urgent call from the staff of Rajajinagar Maternity Corporation Hospital and she rushed to attend the patient Mrs. Sangeetha in the said hospital. The said patient had just given birth to a female still born baby. On examination she found there was no heart beat and respiration, she made necessary entries in the Doctors call book and the same was informed to the relatives of Mrs. Sangeetha. Then the petitioner checked the condition of Mrs. Sangeetha and having found her condition stable, she handed over the charge of the patient to the Duty DoctorDr. Savitha at about 8.30 a.m. Subsequently, she received information that Mrs. Sangeetha also expired at about 10.30 a.m. The father of deceased Sangeetha made complaint to the BBMP alleging negligence on the part of the staff of the Hospital. The complaint dated 24.05.2008 is produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. The complainant states that the relatives of Sangeetha requested the staff nurse to call the doctor, which the staff nurse refused. News papers had also reported the incident on 21.05.2008. Based on the complaint and the news paper reports investigation was ordered to be made by Chief Health Officer. On the basis of the investigation report, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.05.2008 as per Annexure-F. The show-cause notice issued by Chief Health Officer of BBMP would indicate that why action should not be initiated for the negligence in treating Mrs. Sangeetha on 20.05.2008. The petitioner submitted her reply as per Annexure-G dated 24.05.2008. Thereafter, the BBMP initiated enquiry against Smt. T.R. Lalitha, Junior Health Assistant. No enquiry was initiated against the petitioner being satisfied with the reply. The charge against the said Junior Health Assistant was that when it is a difficult case of delivery, instead of calling the Doctor who was available in the quarters, taken up the task of delivery and responsible for the death of the child. In the enquiry, the charges were held to be proved and the said Junior Health Assistant was inflicted with punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect.
3. The petitioner states that based on the News Paper report, the Upa Lokayukta had taken cognizance and directed suomoto investigation. The Upa Lokayukta by order dated 26.05.2008 (Annexure-L) directed Dr. Hanumanthappa, Chairman, Health Foundation, Bengaluru, to submit a preliminary enquiry report on or before 30.6.2008 investigating the negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the doctors and members of the staff. The Chairman, Health Foundation, by covering letter dated 25.6.2008 submitted his report. In the report, it was observed that the petitioner herein was staying at the quarters and she was casual in attending to the emergency cases. The petitioner made a detailed reply to the 4th respondent. In her reply, she has stated that she was called at 8.05 a.m. and she i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
