JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ appeal is filed petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 respectively, against the judgment dated 27.05.2020 in W.P. (C) No. 34537/2019, by which, a learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding thus:

“8. The 2002 Regulation prescribes a Code of Medical ethics to be followed by medical practitioners. Chapter 1 thereof provides for duties and responsibilities of physician in general. Chapter 2 prescribes the duties of physicians to their patients. Chapter 6 enumerates unethical Acts while Chapter 7 enumerates misconduct. Chapter 8 prescribes punishment and disciplinary action. Regulation 8.2 reads as follows:

“8.2. It is made clear that any complaint with regard to professional misconduct can be brought before the appropriate Medical Council for Disciplinary action. Upon receipt of any complaint of professional misconduct, the appropriate Medical Council would hold an enquiry and give opportunity to the registered medical practitioner to be heard in person or by pleader. If the medical practitioner is found to be guilty of committing professional misconduct, the appropriate Medical Council may award such punishment as deemed necessary or may direct the removal altogether or for a specified period, from the register of the name of the delinquent registered practitioner. Deletion from the Register shall be widely publicized in local press as well as in the publications of different Medical Associations/Societies/Bodies.”

Therefore, it is evident that the notices issued to the petitioners are only in respect of the misconduct alleged against them. Exhibit P2 complaint discloses allegations of offences under the 1994 Act. However, there are clear allegations in Exhibit P2 complaint as regards violation of medical ethics and professional conduct by the doctors involved. Prayers are specifically made for imposition of punishments under the 2002 Regulations. Exhibit P1 dated 25.11.2019 is a notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st petitioner. It forwards a copy of Exhibit P2 complaint and directs the 1st petitioner to furnish explanation to the Council within 15 days. The contention of the petitioners is that on the basis of the self same complaint, action has been initiated by the authorised officer vide Exhibit P4 notice. It is, therefore, contended that the parallel action taken by the 2nd respondent is bad in law. However, on an examination of Exhibit P2 complaint as well as the provisions of the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette, Ethics) the Regulations 2002, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent would be duty bound to examine an allegation of violation of Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics by a medical practitioner. The fact that an investigation has been initiated by the appropriate authority under the 1994 Act can, by no stretch of imagination, be a ground to interdict an investigation by the empowered authority under the 2002 Regulations. A reading of Exhibit P2 would make it clear that allegations are made both in respect of offences under the 1994 Act as well as professional misconduct in terms of the 2002 Regulations. If that be so, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no legal infirmity in the action of the 2nd respondent in requiring the petitioners to offer their explanations to the allegations of professional misconduct which has been raised in Ext.P2 complaint. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners have no application whatsoever in the facts of the case, since they relate to prosecution for offences under the 1994 Act, which is not the factual situation in the instant case. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking, inter-alia, to quash Exhibit-P1 show cause notice and identical show cause notices issued to writ petitioners; to direct the 2nd respondent to refrain from considering Exhibit-P2 complaint dated 27.08.20