HC relief to KGMU Resident Doctor from Suspension order for alleged sexual misconduct

Lucknow: Observing that there was no allegation of sexual misconduct, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court recently set aside the suspension order issued against a Junior Resident Doctor, who had been suspended for six months.

While considering the plea moved by the doctor, who had been barred from entering the female wards after evening for allegedly sexually abusing the daughter of a patient, the HC bench comprising of Justice Pankaj Bhatia noted that "there was no allegation against the petitioner with regard to any misconduct of a sexual nature so as to warrant the punishment as has been awarded to the petitioner by means of the impugned order."

Therefore, setting aside the concerned suspension order against Dr Arora of King George Medical University, the bench observed, "...this Court finds that there was prima facie no substance against the petitioner so as to inflict punishment of the nature inflicted by the impugned order, as such, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside."

The case concerned a Junior Resident doctor in the department of Radiotherapy of the King George Medical University. On the basis of a newspaper publication that reported that in the concerned institute, some Junior Resident had sexually abused the daughter of a patient, an inquiry had been initiated. Consequently, the concerned Junior Resident Doctor had been suspended by an order dated 13.09.2019.

Apart from this, on 13.09.2019 itself, the petitioner had been served with a show cause notice.The doctor had also submitted a response. However, claiming that the suspension order had been issued without even considering the reply of the doctor, he approached the High Court bench.

The court took note of the fact that the concerned order had mentioned that the allegations levelled in the newspaper on 13.09.2019 had been inspected and only after the sanction from the Vice Chancellor of the Institute, the petitioner doctor had been suspended for a period of six months from all medical work. He had also been restrained from entering any female ward from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am in the morning till completion of his MD course.

Approaching the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner doctor argued that initially the complaint had been made by a Staff Nurse against the ward boy who was working in the ward in question and the same is contained in Annexure no.5. The doctor's counsel pointed out that the said complaint had been countersigned by the daughter of the patient. However, subsequently, the daughter of the patient made a separate complaint where she had also made a similar complaint against the ward boy. In the new complaint, she had also stated that the petitioner had used harsh language against the said complainant.

Taking note of the gist of the complaint annexed with the plea, the court observed, "A perusal of the said complaint makes it clear that the petitioner was not named and it was stated that along with the ward boy, another person was also present whose conduct and behaviour was full of anger for which the complainant felt very bad."

Apart from this, the court also took note of a counter affidavit annexed with the copy of the inquiry, based on which the said order had been passed. The inquiry report based upon the investigation had reported that in various newspapers it had been mentioned that the victim's age was 16 years which was found to be incorrect as the age of the victim is of thirty years.

Besides, it was also recorded in the report that the victim had stated before the Committee that the petitioner had used improper language for which she had felt very bad. The enquiry report further found certain allegations against the ward boy as made by the complainant. After recording the allegations levelled by the complainant before the enquiry committee, the enquiry committee advised the punishment as has been awarded by means of the impugned order.

It was argued by the doctor's counsel that the order was bad in law as it casts stigma. He also contended that even from the perusal of the inquiry report, no allegations based on which the order had been passed were found to be true. He also referred to the fact that the petitioner never got hold of the concerned inquiry report before passing of the said order. In fact, the doctor had not been called by the Enquiry Committee as well.

The doctor's counsel further argued that even for the sake of argument of the inquiry report is treated to be gospel truth, no reasonable man can form a opinion that there was any conduct of the nature which can be termed as misconduct of a sexual orientation leading to the punishment as has been done by means of the impugned order.

Therefore, he contended that the order suffered from vice of wednesbury arbitrariness also. At this outset, the court noted that the period for which the petitioner had been suspended had already ended. However, the second part of punishment for not appearing in the female ward from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am still continues against the petitioner.

Taking note of all the facts, the court observed,

"Considering the material on record, the allegation levelled were against the ward boy and from perusal of the substance of the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the complainant through a letter and subsequently before the enquiry committee, it is clear that there was no allegation against the petitioner with regard to any misconduct of a sexual nature so as to warrant the punishment as has been awarded to the petitioner by means of the impugned order."

"Although the order suffers from the vice of procedural arbitrariness also, however, as this Court finds that there was prima facie no substance against the petitioner so as to inflict punishment of the nature inflicted by the impugned order, as such, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to pursue his courses and studies in accordance with law," further noted the court.

To read the order, click on the link below.

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/junior-resident-doctor-184763.pdf

Also Read: Hyderabad nurse files complaint alleging rape by Doctor on pretext of marriage