Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 788
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. BASHA
Dr. R. Kannapiran
Versus
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P.No.27267 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On : 14-02-2012
For the Petitioner:Mr. G. Thangavel, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R3, Ms. V.M. Velumani, Special Government Pleader, R2, Mrs. C.N.G. Niraimathi, Advocate.
Disciplinary proceedings must be based on specific and definite allegations, supported by evidence, and conducted in adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Negligence - Medical Malpractice - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Rule 17(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Civil Surgeon, was charged with negligence during a surgery, resulting in post-operative complications for the patient. The disciplinary proceedings led to the imposition of a cut of Rs.2,000/- per month from the petitioner's pension for two years. The petitioner challenged the order in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the charge to be vague and baseless, with no specific allegations or evidence supporting the claim of negligence. It also noted procedural irregularities, including the delay in issuing the charge memo and the lack of evidence provided to the petitioner. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated and set aside the impugned order, directing the refund of deducted amounts and restoration of all benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: Vagueness and baselessness of the charge, procedural irregularities, lack of evidence, violation of principles of natural justice
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific and definite allegations in disciplinary proceedings, adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, and the communication of all relevant evidence to the accused. It held that vague charges and procedural violations vitiate the proceedings.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to refund the deducted amount and restore all benefits to the petitioner.
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2010, imposing the punishment of cut of of Rs.2,000/-per month from the pension amount to be paid to the petitioner for a period of two years, for the charges framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
2. The factual scenario of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition is to be narrated as hereunder:
2.1. The petitioner was working as Senior Civil Surgeon, ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram, Chennai. A surgery was conducted by the petitioner on 08.06.2006 on a patient by name, Tmt.T.Stella, who is the insured person, diagnosed as incisional Hernia. The said patient, Tmt.T.Stella alleged that she was suffering from severe stomach pain, vomiting and head-ache for 5 days. On such complaint of pain, the said Tmt.T.Stella was referred by the petitioner on 13.06.2006 to the Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. On the same day i.e., on 13.06.2006, the said Tmt.T.Stella underwent operation conducted by one Dr.Tamilselvan attached to the Government General Hospital, Chennai as the patient Tmt.T.Stella suffered post operative complications.
2.2. Subsequently, a consumer complaint was preferred by the said Tmt.T.Stella during the month of February 2008 in C.C.No.30/2008 before the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai and in the said complaint, both the petitioner as well as the third respondent filed their counters, denying the allegations levelled by the said patient Tmt.T.Stella, stating that the said patient has not followed the instructions given by the doctor and she has only going on her own way against doctors advise. It was further stated in the counter filed by the third respondent herein, who was cited as second respondent in the said complaint before the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai, that the Discharge Summary was also issued on 13.06.2006 from the ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram Chennai and on 30.06.2006 from the Government General Hospital, Chennai and again on 10.07.2006 from the ESI Hospital. In the said counter it was also specifically stated that during second surgery, no suture was found in the intestine, otherwise, the Surgeon who had operated would have definitely mentioned the same in the Discharge Summary. The said counter was filed by the third respondent in the month of July 2008.
2.3. Ultimately, the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai dismissed the complaint preferred by the said Tmt.T.Stella on 17.09.2008. As against the said dismissal, the complainant, namely, Tmt.T.Stella preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Forum in F.A.No.747/2008 and the State Consumer Forum remanded the matter to the District Consumer Forum on 26.08.2011 and the same is pending as on date.
2.4. Prior to subsequent development in respect of filing the complaint by the said Tmt.T.Stella before the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai, the petitioner has been served with a charge memo dated 28.05.2008 in respect of negligence said to have been committed by the petitioner during the course of conducting surgery on 08.06.2006 and the said charge memo does not disclose on whose complaint or on what basis, the said charge memo was issued against the petitioner. The charges as per the annexure contained in the charge memo dated 28.05.2008 is as follows:
“Charge:
That you Dr.R.Kannapiran, M.S., Senior Civil Surgeon, ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram, Chennai 23 who has done surgery to the patient Tmt.T.Stella who is the Insured Person (IP No.51-30952432) on 8.6.06 diagnosed as incisional Herinia, and after the surgery done by you, the Insured person Tmt.T.Stella suffered with severe pain in the stomach and vomiting and head ache for five days and felt as if she was dying and no test either X-ray, ECG or Scan was taken to analyse the problem of the patient. Only after five days after the surgery i.e., on 12.6.06 you and other doctors rea
