Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
Rajeev Kumar Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
Medical Council Of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8807 of 2017
Decided On : 10-11-2017
MCI - Medical Misconduct - [Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 15(3)(b), Section 16(1)(a), Section 17(1)(d), Section 33(1)(j)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, particularly focusing on the sections related to professional misconduct, removal from the medical register, and the powers of the Ethics Committee. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to set aside the punishment and remand the matter to the Ethics Committee for reconsideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Medical Council of India's decision to remove his name from the Indian Medical Register for submitting false documents related to his work experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of submitting false documents but set aside the punishment, emphasizing the need for proportionality and objective standards in imposing punitive measures.
Issues: The issues involved the submission of false documents, the authority of the Ethics Committee, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, emphasizing the need for proportionality, objective standards, and the right to be heard before imposing punitive measures.
Final Decision: The court set aside the punishment and remanded the matter to the Ethics Committee for reconsideration.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
CM No. 35988/2017
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8807/2017 and CM APPL. 35989/2017
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 21.08.2017 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Medical Council of India (hereafter ‘MCI’), whereby it has imposed the punishment of removing petitioner’s name from the Indian Medical Register for a period of three years from the date of the impugned order.
4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for hearing and finally heard.
5. The MCI has imposed the punition on account of the petitioner affirming a false declaration for assessment of the application of Hind Institute of Medical Sciences, Safedabad, Barabanki (hereafter ‘HIMS’) for commencing a PG Course. The fact that petitioner had given an incorrect declaration is not disputed. However, the petitioner claims that there are certain mitigating circumstances and further contends that the punishment imposed on him is harsh and disproportionate.
6. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy involved in the present petition are as under:-
6.1 The petitioner qualified for the degree of MBBS in November, 1991 and was registered with the Bihar Council of Medical Registration on 12.03.1993. The petitioner received his degree of Masters in Surgery from Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur in December, 1997.
6.2 The petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery at HIMS on 25.04.2008. Concededly, the petitioner’s appointment was based on his past work experience, which did not include any work experience with Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research (hereafter ‘Meenakshi Academy’); concededly the petitioner had no such experience.
6.3 On 10.07.2009 HIMS was granted recognition by the MCI and was permitted to offer the MBBS Course. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Associate Professor on 02.12.2013 on the basis of having four years teaching experience and publishing two case reports.
6.4 In 2015, HIMS made an application for commencing a post graduate course and, the assessors appointed by MCI carried out pre-PG Inspection of HIMS on 23.07.2015 and 24.07.2015. For the said purpose, the petitioner furnished a declaration form as a faculty of HIMS indicating his designation as Associate Professor in the Department of Surgery. The said declaration form included details of his previous appointments/teaching experience. The same indicated that the petitioner had functioned on the post of Assistant Professor from 25.04.2008 to 01.12.2013 and as an Associate Professor from 02.12.2013. The petitioner also declared that prior to joining HIMS, he was working at SGPGI Lucknow as a Senior Resident and was relieved from the said post on 22.09.2000.
7. Apparently, the MCI’s assessors found that the petitioner was not entitled from promotion as an Associate Professor at HIMS, as the case reports (on the basis of which he had been promoted) were not published during the period 2009 to 2013. This observation was communicated to HIMS. Admittedly, the effect of the said observation was that the faculty strength of HIMS faculty would fall short of the requirement for commencing the PG Course.
8. In order to overcome the said observation, the experience-relieving certificate dated 30.05.2007-purportedly issued by Meenakshi Academy, was fabricated. By the said certificate, it was certified that the petitioner had worked as an Assistant Professor in the Department of General Surgery of Meenakshi Academy from 01.04.2006 to 30.05.2007 and the petitioner was relieved on 30.05.2007. On the strength of the said fabricated certificate, it was claimed that the petitioner had an additional experience of one year and one month as an Assistant Professor. With this additional experience, the petitioner’s total experience as an
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
