Top Court Invokes Article 142, Cites Violation of Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India granted relief to a 76-year-old senior pediatrician by setting aside a High Court order that had restored disciplinary action against him by the erstwhile Medical Council of India, now replaced by the National Medical Commission (NMC).
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma exercised extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and reduced the punishment imposed on the doctor from removal of his name from the Indian Medical Register for three months to a mere “censure/warning”.
The Court directed the NMC to issue an appropriate warning order in place of the earlier punishment.
Case Linked to Dual Faculty Appearance During MCI Inspections
The case involved a former Head of the Department of Paediatrics at Patna Medical College (PMC), who was accused of professional misconduct for allegedly appearing as faculty in two medical colleges during the same academic year.
After retiring from PMC, the doctor joined Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College (SSSMC) in January 2015. He later resigned from the institution in April 2015 and rejoined PMC on a contractual basis.
During an MCI inspection at SSSMC on January 22, 2015, the pediatrician appeared before inspectors as a faculty member of the institution. Subsequently, while rejoining PMC, he submitted a declaration form that did not mention his brief tenure at SSSMC in the same academic year.
Doctor Was in Amsterdam During Surprise Inspection
The controversy escalated after the MCI conducted a surprise inspection at PMC on May 5, 2015. However, the doctor was reportedly attending an international medical conference in Amsterdam during that period.
In his response to the show-cause notice, the doctor denied appearing before inspectors at PMC on the inspection date and submitted passport and visa documents proving that he was abroad between May 4 and May 9, 2015.
The Principal of PMC also confirmed before the Ethics Committee that the doctor had been granted Ex-India leave for participation in the ESPGHAN conference in Amsterdam and was not physically present during the inspection.
Ethics Committee Changed Basis of Allegation Without Fresh Notice
Although the Ethics Committee initially accepted that the doctor was not guilty of the original allegation, the Executive Committee later sought re-verification regarding whether the doctor had disclosed his earlier appearance at SSSMC in the declaration form submitted at PMC.
Subsequently, without issuing a fresh notice, the Ethics Committee held the doctor guilty of “serious misconduct” for suppressing information and ordered removal of his name from the Medical Register for three months.
The decision was initially quashed by a Single Judge of the Patna High Court in 2017, which observed that there was no malicious intent or mens rea. However, a Division Bench of the High Court later restored the punishment in 2023, holding that the omission could not be treated as a bona fide mistake.
Supreme Court Finds Breach of Natural Justice
Setting aside the High Court Division Bench order, the Supreme Court observed that the final finding against the doctor was based on an allegation that was never part of the original show-cause notice.
The bench noted that once the doctor had successfully defended the original charge, the disciplinary authorities could not punish him on an entirely new ground without informing him and seeking his explanation.
The Court said this amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and denied the doctor a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Referring to the judgment in Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, the Court reiterated that disciplinary authorities cannot impose punishment on charges that were never formally framed against a person.
Relief Granted Considering Doctor’s Age and Circumstances
Taking note of the pediatrician’s advanced age and the procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process, the Supreme Court decided to reduce the punishment to a warning instead of enforcing suspension from the medical register.
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for disciplinary proceedings conducted by medical regulatory authorities and reinforces the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in professional misconduct cases.
