The nature of duties executed by the doctors and the circumstances of the case should be considered in determining the appropriateness of disciplinary actions.

Judgment:

P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. In the instant petition under Section 482, Cr. PC., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-3-2014 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dhamtari in Special Sessions Trial No. 3/13. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is a Senior Medical Officer at District Hospital, Dhamtari was a witness in the aforesaid sessions trial case and she as a witness was summoned to give her evidence before the Trial Court on 9-5-2013, but on account of some emergency duty at the hospital, she could not appear before the Court and moved an application for exemption of her appearance on the said date. Therefore, fresh summon was issued securing her appearance on 10-6-2013 on which date, the petitioner appeared before the Court below, but her statement could not be recorded because there was a condolence on account of the death of a member of the Bar. Subsequently, again fresh summon was issued for her appearance before the Trial Court on 21-1-2014 on which date, as the petitioner was not feeling well, her husband who was also a Govt. Doctor had gone to the Court and moved an application about her ill health and sought for an adjournment. Subsequently, the case was adjourned for 10-2-2014 on which date again the petitioner appeared before the Court below but on account of the Presiding Judge being elevated, in spite of the petitioner being present before the Court, her evidence could not be recorded and the matter was adjourned for 6-3-2014.

2. From Annexure P-5, it is reflected that on 3-3-2014, the petitioner on account of a family function had obtained three days' casual leave from 5th to 7th March, 2014 with permission to remain out of headquarter. The said application was approved by the Competent Authority and after getting approval, the petitioner had proceeded to attend the function on account of which she could not appear before the Court on 6-3-2014. On account of the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Court below on 6-3-2014, bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner for her presence on 26-3-2014 and simultaneously, a notice under Section 350 of Cr. PC was also issued to the present petitioner by the Court below.

3. From the order sheet, it is clear that on 26-3-2014, the petitioner has entered her appearance before the Court below and she has also examined and discharged on the same day. From the record, it is also clear that on the said date, the petitioner had also given reply to the notice under Section 350, Cr.P.C., which is also enclosed with the present petition as Annexure P-3. On perusal of Annexure P-3, it is clearly reflected that the petitioner has tendered unconditional apology for her absence before the Court on 6-3-2014 and she has also explained and justified showing reason for her not being present on 6-3-2014. In spite of the unconditional apology and justification given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice under Section 350, Cr.P.C., the Court below vide impugned order dated 26-3-2014, after giving a warning to the petitioner for future has also ordered the Superintendent/Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Dhamtari that the said warning given by the Court should be reflected in the service book of the present petitioner and after complying the same, the Civil Surgeon has also to give a compliance report in writing to the Court and which has already been executed by the Civil Surgeon.

4. It is this direction given by the Court below, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not a case where the petitioner had deliberately not appeared before the Court on any of the dates on which the petitioner was to be examined. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the two order sheets dated 10-6-2013 and 10-2-2014 wherein on both the dates the petitioner had appeared before the Court but for no fault on the part of the petitioner, her evidenc