Dereliction of duty! HC Denies Relief to Medical Officer Who Submitted False Injury Report, Compulsory Retirement upheld
Rajasthan High Court
Jaipur: Denying relief to a Medical Officer, who had committed dereliction of duty by submitting a factually wrong injury report in a case, the Rajasthan High Court upheld the compulsory retirement as a punishment for the doctor.
Noting that the doctor submitted a false report and terming such conduct as "highly despicable", the HC bench held, "In view of the aforesaid findings, it is apparent that the petitioner has submitted false report and committed dereliction in discharge of his duty. None can undermine the importance of true and correct medico-legal report in the injury cases which has great role in just and fair disposal of the cases. Such a conduct by the Medical Officer is highly despicable as it causes interference with the administration of justice."
Upholding the disciplinary action of compulsory punishment for the doctor, the HC bench comprising Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal noted, "In view thereof, this Court does not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority based on concurrence of the RPSC to be shockingly disproportionate to the conscience so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited writ jurisdiction."
The petitioner was accused of furnishing wrong facts in the injury report prepared upon medical examination of a person while he was posted as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, Toaraisingh (Tonk). Following this, he was served with a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 through the Memorandum dated 17.01.1998 for committing dereliction of his duty.
An inquiry was held according to the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and he was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. Consequently, the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, punished him through an order dated 30.03.2002 with the punishment of compulsory retirement with a proportionate pension.
Filing the plea, the concerned Medical Officer sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 17.01.1998 against him, the concurrence letter dated 04.03.2002 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, the order of punishment dated 30.03.2002 and the consequential relieving order dated 16.04.2002 with a further direction to the respondents to allow him to continue on the post of Junior Specialist (Anesthesia). However, during oral submissions, the counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to the extent of modification of punishment.
Challenging the quantum of the punishment, the counsel for the petitioner doctor submitted that he measured the dimension of injuries received by the patient through the naked eye which might have resulted in some variation.
He submitted that before being ordered the punishment, he had rendered the services for 23 years and considering the nature of the allegation found to be proved against him, the punishment of compulsory retirement with a proportionate pension was highly disproportionate. Therefore, he prayed for modification of the punishment by substituting it with a lighter punishment.
On the other hand, opposing the prayer, the State Counsel submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner doctor was on the lighter side taking a lenient view of the matter which did not warrant any interference of the Court. Therefore, the State Counsel prayed for the dismissal of the plea.
While considering the matter, the HC bench perused the material on record that revealed a great variance in the injury report prepared by the petitioner with the medical report prepared by the Medical Board. The bench observed that while the petitioner found the injury No.1, a sharp-edged injury on the shoulder of the injured to be 3 centimeters in length, the Medical Board found the same to be four and a half inches i.e. 11.25 centimeters in length.
Similarly, while the petitioner doctor found injury No. 2, another sharp-edged injury on the head of the injured 2 centimeters, the Medical Board found it to be 1.25 inches i.e. 3.75 centimetre in length.
Taking note of these findings, the bench observed that the petitioner doctor had submitted a false report and committed dereliction in the discharge of his duty. Highlighting that noone can undermine the importance of true and correct medico-legal reports in injury cases which has a great role in the just and fair disposal of the cases, the HC bench termed the conduct of the Medical Officer as highly despicable as it caused interference with the administration of justice.
"In view thereof, this Court does not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority based on concurrence of the RPSC to be shockingly disproportionate to the conscience so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited writ jurisdiction," observed the bench while dismissing the doctor's plea.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/rajasthan-hc-wrong-medico-legal-report-244615.pdf
