Back
High Court Of Orissa
B. K. BEHERA, LINGARAJA RATH
KAMALA KANTA - Appellant
Versus
O.S.BOARD OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE, BHUBANESWAR - Respondent
ORIGINAL JURDN. CASE 1814 Of 1986
Decided On : 08/21/1987
HOMEOPATHY - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION - CHARGES OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND INFAMOUS CONDUCT - JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 22(3) AND 25(1)(B) OF THE ORISSA HOMEOPATHIC ACT, 1956 - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND INFAMOUS CONDUCT - REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFICITY OF CHARGES - APPLICABILITY OF REGULATIONS FRAMED UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered homeopathic practitioner, challenged an order passed by the Orissa State Board of Homeopathic Medicine cancelling his registration and removing his name from the State register of homeopathic practitioners on the grounds of professional misconduct and infamous conduct.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the charges levelled against the petitioner under Sections 22(3) and 25(1)(b) of the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956, did not constitute professional misconduct or infamous conduct and therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The Court further held that the charges were not specific and did not satisfy the ingredients of the provisions, making the exercise of jurisdiction by the Board without initial competence.
Issues: 1. Whether the charges levelled against the petitioner constituted professional misconduct or infamous conduct under Sections 22(3) and 25(1)(b) of the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956? 2. Whether the Board had jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on the charges? 3. Whether the charges were specific and satisfied the ingredients of the provisions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Sections 22(3) and 25(1)(b) of the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956, and held that Section 22(3) authorizes the Board to cancel or alter any entry in the register if it is fraudulently or incorrectly made, while Section 25(1)(b) empowers the Board to prohibit the entry or remove the name of a homeopathic practitioner found guilty of professional misconduct or other infamous conduct. 2. The Court held that the charges against the petitioner did not allege any fraud practiced upon the Board or Registrar, and therefore, could not be brought under Section 22(3). The Court further held that the charges did not constitute professional misconduct or other infamous conduct as defined in the Central Act and Regulations, and therefore, could not be brought under Section 25(1)(b). 3. The Court held that the charges were not specific and did not satisfy the ingredients of the provisions, as they did not allege any specific acts of professional misconduct or infamous conduct, and therefore, the Board lacked initial competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the orders cancelling the petitioner's registration and removing his name from the Register of Homeopathic Practitioners, and directed that he be deemed to have always continued as a Registered Homeopathic Practitioner validly.
L. RATH, J.
( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ application is to an order passed by the Orissa State Board of Homeopathic Medicine, Opposite Party No. 1, cancelling the registration of the petitioner as a homeopathic practitioner and removing his name from the State register of homeopathic practitioners.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered homeopathic practitioner so registered under the provisions of the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956 and is presently the Principal-cum-Superintendent of Dr. Abhin Chandra Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, a Government Homeopathic Medical College. The petitioner became a listed Homeopathic practitioner in 1964 and was registered on 3-5-1969. The order of removal of the name from the register is dated 12-6-1986.
( 3 ) OPPOSITE Party No. 1 is a statutory body created and functioning under the Orissa Homeopathic Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the State Act' ). The law relating to homeopathic practitioner of the State is as contained in the State Act as also in the Central Act known as the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (Act 59 of 1973) (for brevity 'the Central Act, ). A homeopathic practitioner is listed under the State Act as a listed homeopathic practitioner or as a registered homeopathic practitioner and by virtue of his name being entered in the State register he is also enrolled in the Central register. Section 25 (1) of the Central Act provides that if the name of any person enrolled on the State register of homeopathy is removed therefrom, the Central Council shall also direct the removal of such person from their register. The consequence of cancellation of registration and removal of the name from the registers of homeopathic practitioners is a bar stipulated under S. 50 of the State Act against practising as a homeopathic doctor with a penalty provided under S. 51 for contravention of the same and under S. 43 no person other than a registered homeopathic practitioner qualified from an institution recognised by the Board is competent to hold an appointment as medical officer of health, physician or other medical officer in a homeopathic hospital maintained or aided by the State Government or any local authority. Loss of registration also visits a practitioner with the consequence of not being able to sign or authenticate birth or death certificates, sign or authenticate medical or physical fitness certificates or give evidence at any inquest or in any Court of law as an expert relating to the homeopathic system of medicine which privileges he otherwise enjoys in accordance with the provisions of S. 29.
( 4 ) THE action taken against the petitioner by apposite party No. 1 is as a consequence of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on the allegation of his having been guilty of professional misconduct and infamous conduct. The substance of the charges which were eight in number was as follows : (I) The petitioner bearing registration No. C/21 of the Board had married one Smt. Sarat Kumari Kar in 1954 and had a female child through her. During the subsistence of that marriage he again married one Smt. Bijayalaxmi Pani in 1963 and had also sworn an affidavit of having effected plural marriages, a conduct which is in contravention of the Hindu Marriage Act and is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, Such infamous conduct is violative of the provisions of S. 25 of the State Act. (II) Having two legally married wives, before, after and at the time of issue of registration No. C/21 amounts to infamous conduct and had it come to the notice of the Board before issue of the registration licence, the registration would not have been allowed and the licence in question would not have been issued in his favour. (III) The petitioner on the strength of being a registered homeopathic practitioner and possessing licence as such became eligible for appointment as a Lecturer in the Government Homeopathic Medical College (renamed as Dr. Abhim Chandra Homeopathic Medical College) and is
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
