O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st Respondents pertaining to the proceedings under Ref. No. TNMC / DC 117/2019, quashing the order in Letter dated 17.12.2019 and consequentially directing the 1st Respondent to restore the name of the Petitioner in the Medical Register of Tamil Nadu Medical Council.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a qualified Dermatologist with consultancy at various clinics and hospital in Chennai and has previously worked as Senior Resident at AIIMS and was a clinical Fellow at the National Skin Centre and he completed his M.D.(Dermatology) from Kakatiya Medical College (Warangal), Diploma in Dermatology from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons (Glasgow, U.K) and M.B.B.S. from PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (Coimbatore). The petitioner is registered himself as a Medical Practitioner with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council.

3. While so, the petitioner received a letter from the 1st respondent dated 16.06.2016, wherein he was charged of violations under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Sections 1.4.2, 6.1, 7.1, 7.3, 7.11, 7.12, 7.12 and 7.20 of the Code of Medical Ethics. The petitioner subsequently submitted a detailed reply in writing along with necessary annexures, which was taken on record and the matter was treated as closed.

4. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive another letter dated

05.07.2019 from the 1st respondent, after a period of three years, wherein he was charged with resorting to advertisement with photograph in online search site ''Practo'' in violation of regulations of Code of Medical Ethics (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2003, which stipulates that, ''Soliciting of patients directly or indirectly by a physician is unethical. A physician shall not make use of him as subject of any form or manner of advertising or publicity through any mode''. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted a written reply dated 20.07.2019, stating that there is no advertisement in Practo carrying his photograph and that he has no financial or any agreements with Practo, in individual capacity.

5. Inspite of the said reply, the petitioner was shocked to receive summons from the 1st respondent, nearly after four months, asking the petitioner to attend an inquiry before the disciplinary committee / 2nd respondent herein on 12.11.2019 at 10.00 am and the above said summons has not made reference to his written reply dated 20.07.2019. On receipt of the said summons, the petitioner attended the inquiry before the 2nd respondent and provided a detailed explanation. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has received a letter dated 17.12.2019, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was resorting to advertisement in ''Practo.Com'' in violation of Code of Medical Ethics and thereby decided to impose the penalty of removing his name from Medical Register of Tamil Nadu Medical Council for three months. Against the said impugned letter dated 17.12.2019, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though explanations were given both in person on 12.11.2019 and in writing on 19.11.2019, the same were not considered by the respondents either before the conduct of the proceedings or even thereafter. Further in the said impugned letter dated 17.12.2019, there is no reason was given as to how the 2nd respondent or the Registrar, the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, arrived at the decision to impose a penalty of removing the petitioner's name from the Medical Register for a period of three months. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that aggrieved by the letter dated 17.12.2019, the petitioner, through his advocate, issued a legal notice to the respondents 1 and 2 on 28.12.2019, however no reply has been received to the said legal notice.

7. It i