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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1191

High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA, J.
Dr. A. Parimala
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department & Another
W.P.No. 38205 of 2005 and WPMP No. 40848 of 2005 and WVMP No. 665 of 2006
Decided On : 05-03-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P. Ganesan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: N. Srinivasan, AGP.

Fair and reasonable opportunity must be afforded in disciplinary proceedings, and any flaw in the enquiry proceedings may lead to the cancellation of the entire proceedings.

Headnote:

Charge Memo - Medical Negligence - -

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a doctor, was issued a charge memo for alleged medical negligence resulting in the death of a patient. The petitioner challenged the charge memo, arguing that the enquiry was conducted without furnishing requisite documents and caused prejudice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a flaw in the enquiry proceedings and the Disciplinary Authority cancelled the entire proceedings to give a fair chance to the petitioner. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the issuance of a fresh charge memo at this stage did not call for any interference.

Issues: Validity of charge memo, fairness of enquiry proceedings, prejudice caused to the petitioner

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair and reasonable opportunity in disciplinary proceedings and acknowledged the flaw in the enquiry proceedings, leading to the cancellation of the entire proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court directed the second respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry expeditiously and complete it within a specified period.

Judgment :-

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Charge Memo issued by the second respondent/Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai in his proceedings Ref.No.90894/SCI/2/93-1, dated 22.7.1995.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined as Assistant Surgeon through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1986. When she was working as Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Thiruppattur, one patient, viz., Vijaya was brought to the hospital with labour pain at 6.20 a.m. on 24.9.1993. The Duty Doctor did not attend her. As a result, the Staff Nurse took the patient to the Labour Ward. Thereafter, the petitioner joined duty at 7.30 a.m. and examined the patient Vijaya at 8.00 a.m. While examining the said patient, she found that there was some mild "Cephalo Pelvic Disproportion". Therefore, she advised the Staff Nurse to give trial labour by giving Syntocinon drips for normal delivery. While she was watching the patient, the Medical Officer instructed her to perform four Family Planning Operations. Before leaving for operation, she examined the patient Vijaya and found that the treatment which was given to her did not give any progress. Therefore, she advised the Staff Nurse to stop the drips and prepare the patient for operation and send the patient to the operation theatre. Thereafter, she went to the operation theater at 10.30 a.m. as per the direction given by the Medical Officer.

3. It was further submitted that, while the petitioner was in the operation theater, she enquired about the condition of the patient Vijaya two times. She was informed that the patient was not yet prepared for operation and as and when the patient is prepared, the patient would be sent to the operation theater. The petitioner, after completing the four Family Planning Operations, came to the Ward in which, the patient Vijaya was admitted at 1.15 p.m. and advised the Staff Nurse to give adequate care and she went for lunch at 1.30 p.m. All of a sudden, during the lunch hour, she was informed by phone call that the patient Vijaya had breathing problem. Immediately, she attended the patient Vijaya, but she lost her breathing at 2.45 p.m.

4. It was further submitted that the preliminary enquiry was conducted and they found that the Staff Nurse Tmt.Kasthuri and Midwife Tmt.Rajeswari were responsible for the death of the patient and charges were also framed against them. They have been given a punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. After two years, the petitioner has been given a charge memo dated 22.7.1995 for the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1993 stating that she was also responsible for the death of the patient ignoring the preliminary enquiry report. Thereafter, she has submitted her detailed explanation. Domestic enquiry has been ordered to be conducted. Before participating in the enquiry, the petitioner has requested the authorities concerned to furnish certain documents relating to the charges i.e. the statement given by the attendant of the patient and preliminary enquiry report so that, she would be in a position to participate in the enquiry. But, her request to furnish certain documents was refused. However, without furnishing those documents, an Enquiry Offier was appointed to go into the charges and the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.4.2001 along with the report of the Enquiry Officer asking her to submit explanation. Subsequently, when she submitted her written explanation on 11.7.2001, she has brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority that enquiry has been conducted without furnishing the requisite documents, which have been sought for by her and







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