SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 1824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Dr.Shalik Bhaurao Ade - Petitioner
versus
Medical Council of India and Ors. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.11429, 11431, 1132 OF 2012 (A.S.) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.562 OF 2013 (O.S.)
Decided On : 14.10.2015

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.Vikram Chavan with Mr.Pavan Patil and Mr.Balaji Barge for Petitioners in WP Nos.11429, 11431 and 11432 of 2012.
Mr.M.M.Vashi, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Aparna Deokar, Mr.Makarand Kale, P.Desai, S.M.Sharma i/by M.P.Vashi & Associates for Petitioner in WP No.562 of 2013.
Mr.Ganesh Gole for Respondent no.1 Medical Council of India.
Mr.Rahul Nerlekar for Respondent no.2 Maharashtra Medical Council.

Headnote:

The Medical Council of India (MCI) and Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Petitioners, doctors and medical practitioners, for breach of professional code of ethics. Petitioners challenged the orders of MCI and MMC, contending that MCI lacked jurisdiction, the principles of natural justice were violated, and the punishments inflicted were disproportionate. The Court held that MCI had the authority to take disciplinary action against Petitioners, as the regulations empowered the Council to deal with misconduct and infamous acts. The Court found that Petitioners were duly notified of the proceedings and had the opportunity to defend themselves. The Court also held that the punishments inflicted were not excessive, given the seriousness of the misconduct. The Court dismissed the petitions.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, doctors and medical practitioners, were subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) for violating the professional code of ethics. The Petitioners challenged these actions, arguing that MCI lacked jurisdiction, the principles of natural justice were breached, and the punishments were disproportionate.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that MCI had the authority to take disciplinary action against Petitioners, as the regulations empowered the Council to deal with misconduct and infamous acts. The Court found that Petitioners were duly notified of the proceedings and had the opportunity to defend themselves. The Court also held that the punishments inflicted were not excessive, given the seriousness of the misconduct.

Issues: 1. Whether MCI had the jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against Petitioners. 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated. 3. Whether the punishments inflicted were disproportionate.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. MCI had the authority to take disciplinary action against Petitioners, as the regulations empowered the Council to deal with misconduct and infamous acts. 2. Petitioners were duly notified of the proceedings and had the opportunity to defend themselves, thus the principles of natural justice were not violated. 3. The punishments inflicted were not excessive, given the seriousness of the misconduct.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the disciplinary actions taken against Petitioners by MCI and MMC.

JUDGMENT :

S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.

In all these petitions, common questions of fact and law are raised and, therefore, they can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.

3. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve a challenge to the orders of Medical Council of India (`MCI') and Maharashtra Medical Council ('MMC') against Petitioners/Doctors for breach of professional code of ethics.

4. We would take the facts in two petitions so that the principal arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the Respondents can be appreciated. Facts in Writ Petition No.562 of 2014 (O.S.) :

5. In Writ Petition No.562 of 2014, the Petitioner Dr. Shashikant Patel is a citizen of India. He is registered as a medical practitioner with Respondent no.2 MMC bearing registration no.47177. The Petitioner was appointed as a Professor of Anatomy by the medical college namely Melmaruvathur Adiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences located at Melamaruvathur in the State of Tamil Nadu (`said Medical College' for the sake of brevity).

6. On or about 1 February 2010, the Petitioner took charge as Dean of the said Medical College. An inspection team of MCI carried out an inspection of the said Medical College on 29 March 2010. During this inspection, the inspection team claims to have found 32 declaration forms in respect of 32 faculty members, who were appointed by one Dr.T.Ramesh. It is further claimed by the Respondent no.1 that all the 32 faculty members were practicing Doctors and, therefore, they could not have been shown as full time faculty members. On the inspection report of this team, a complaint was filed with Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI') at Chennai. The Petitioner in this petition is shown as accused no.7 in the said complaint. The case of the Petitioner is that he had no role absolutely in making appointments of any of these 32 medical practitioners/doctors. Therefore, he gave a statement and recorded by the CBI, that the Petitioner was appointed as an adhoc Dean on 22 January 2010 and took charge on 1 February 2010. The appointment of these 32 doctors was made much prior to the Petitioner's appointment as Dean of the said Medical College.

7. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner in WP No.562 of 2014 was surprised to be served with an order dated 21 January 2013 passed by MCI the first Respondent in that petition, directing the MMC to remove the name of the Petitioner from the State Medical Register for five years. Annexure-A to the petition is a copy of this order.

Facts in Writ Petition No.11429 of 2012 (A.S.) :

8. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.11429 of 2012 filed on the Appellate Side of this Court states that he completed successfully his MBBS course from Grant Medical College, Mumbai in the year 1995. On 26 February 1997, he was registered as a medical practitioner with Respondent no.2 to this petition namely Maharashtra Medical Council. His registration number is MMC82206.

In the year 2000, the Petitioner completed his post graduation in Radio Diagnosis from Grant Medical College itself. He had an excellent academic record and has fared well in all the examinations. During 2001 and 2009, this Petitioner worked as Lecturer/ Associate Professor in various colleges. As there were vacancies to be filled, in the said Medical College in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Petitioner in this petition, approached the said Medical College. It is his claim that pursuant to the application made, he was interviewed by a duly constituted selection committee. He faired well in the interview and bearing in mind his academic record, the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radiology at the said Medical College on 1 October 2009. AnnexureB to this petition is a copy of the appointment order.

9. The Petitioner then states that he joined the services at the said Medical College and was also allotted quar








































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top