Dr. Srinivasa B J Vs the State of Karnataka

SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST (SAST) (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE) BANGALORE METRO TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TTMC A BLOCK, 4^TH FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD BANGALORE-5600 27 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL CONSULTANT BANGALORE DIVISION, BANGALORE.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:31216 WP No. 7357 of 2017

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

EXPERT ENQUIRY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED VIDE OM NO.HPW/SAST/55/2015-16 SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST (SAST) (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE), BANGALORE METRO TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TTMC 'A' BLOCK, 4^TH FLOOR SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD BANGALORE-560 027 REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶20

KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL NO. 16/6, MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHNAGAR

¶21

BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R-3 SERVED)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE SUBMITTED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02.02.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner after completing his graduation in MBBS and

¶29

completion of his post-graduation in MD Medicine had joined the services of HCG Hospital, Bangalore. One Dr.Yatheesh Raj

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31216 WP No. 7357 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

of Karnataka Cancer Hospital had requested the petitioner to attend the patients at the said hospital. Accordingly petitioner was visiting the said hospital between October 2014 and December 2014. He stopped visiting the said hospital thereafter. After discontinuing his visit to the said hospital, he learnt that the said Karnataka Cancer Hospital had misutilised funds of the State Government which were disbursed to the said hospital under "Vajpayee Arogya Shree Scheme" specifically designed to treat the patients who are economically weak. Allegation of said hospital fabricating the medical records to stake their claims that the scheme was made. This had resulted in constitution of an enquiry committee by the respondent No.2. Notice in furtherance to the said constitution of enquiry committee was issued to the said Karnataka Cancer Hospital represented by Chief Executive Officer/Administrator. Enquiry report was submitted as per Annexure-D dated 15.09.0215.

¶33

2. On several allegations/charges of misappropriation made against the said hospital during the enquiry, apparently, the committee found involvement of the petitioner herein in

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:31216 WP No. 7357 of 2017

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

recommending/prescribing treatment/medication in respect of certain patients who are dead.

¶38

3. Based on the said report at Annexure-D, respondent No.4-Karnataka Medical Council issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as per Annexure-E as to why disciplinary action against the petitioner shall not be initiated for professional misconduct. Petitioner has submitted his reply pleading his innocence and ignorance about the allegations including the report implicating him in the process. It is this which has brought the petitioner before this Court.

¶39

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes two fold submissions. Firstly, petitioner was not afforded with any opportunity by the enquiry committee constituted under the directions of respondent No.2. Secondly, that he was not at all involved in the affairs of the said hospital, except briefly visiting as a consultant during the months October, November and December-2014. Without any blemish, he having rendered service, is constrained to face this unwarranted situation. Therefore he submits that the petitioner being subjected to

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31216 WP No. 7357 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

disciplinary proceedings by Karnataka Medical Council for alleged professional misconduct, which he has not committed.

¶43

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 submitted that the enquiry conducted by respondent No.2 was not against any individual as that of the petitioner. It was against Karnataka Cancer Hospital as a whole with regard to its affairs and utilisation of funds which were reserved to be utilised for the treatment of the patients. And it is in the process petitioner has been found to have played certain role. Therefore, the allegation of petitioner not having been provided with opportunity is unsustainable. He brings to the notice of this Court an order dated 09.05.2026 passed by respondent No.4-Karnataka Medical Council whereby the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner has been kept in abeyance in the light of criminal proceedings being prosecuted by the State against the Hospital for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC on the file of IV Additional CMM Court, Bangalore.

¶44

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 supplementing the submission made by the learned counsel for

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:31216 WP No. 7357 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 submits as and when the enquiry commences petitioner will be given full opportunity to present his case. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶49

7. Heard and perused the records.

¶50

8. Facts narrated above do not require reiteration. Records reveal that the enquiry by respondent No.2 was against Karnataka Cancer Hospital as a whole and not against any particular individual. However, there is substance in submissions being made by the learned counsel for petitioner that when serious allegations targeting his professional conduct are made which are stigmatic in nature, he ought to have been given opportunity sufficient enough to defend his cause. Nonetheless, in the light of subsequent development of proceedings before Karnataka Medical Council having been kept in abeyance and in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the matter with the following directions:

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:31216 WP No. 7357 of 2017

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(i) If in the event of Respondent No.4 recommencing the enquiry, it shall proceed on its own merits without being influenced in any manner whatsoever by the observations made or findings given by the Committee constituted by respondent No.2 or as found in the report at Annexure- D.

¶55

(ii) The allegations if any shall be substantiated against the petitioner in the manner known to law and the petitioner shall be given full opportunity to defend his case.

¶56

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶57

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶58

SBN

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Dr. Srinivasa B J v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Srinivasa B J v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hameed Khan v a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Alikunhi Vs Deputy Conservator of Forests and Regional Manager

Muniswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H P Karthik Vs Deputy Commissioner

Dr S Ramesh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

T. B. Ramesh Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests