Disposed

Vinod Kumar P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2021WP(C)/2072/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a notice issued by the Kerala State Pharmacy Council Registrar under Rule 88, 2012 is invalid for omitting the nature and particulars of the charge. The Writ Petition directed the Council to desist from proceeding with the notice and pending disciplinary proceedings until compliance with the Rules is ensured. The petitioner is a D-Pharm Pharmacist challenging a summons to appea

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to desist from proceeding with Ext.P1; future disciplinary actions to be done in compliance of Rules with specific charges indicated.

Vinod Kumar P Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2072 OF 2019(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VINODKUMAR P, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, VISMAYA, CHAMPAD P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, 670 694

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.C.LEENA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 THE REGISTRAR, THE KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL, MNVG ADIYODI MEMORIAL PHARMACY BHAVAN, PH LAB COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035

¶12

3 THE KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MNVG ADIYODI MEMORIAL PHARMACY BHAVAN, PH LAB COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035

¶13

WP(C) No.2072/2019

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

4 O.C. NAVEEN CHAND, S/O. GOPI, AGE NOT KNOWN, 'ANAAMAYAM', CHAMPAD P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, 670 694

¶16

R2-3 BY ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL R2-3 BY ADV. SMT.V.A.HARITHA R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.2072/2019

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2021

¶23

The petitioner, who is a D-Pharm Pharmacist registered under the Pharmacy Council of Kerala, is before this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P1 letter issued by the Registrar of the Pharmacy Council.

¶24

By Ext.P1 letter, the Registrar of Kerala State Pharmacy Council has directed the petitioner to appear before the General Council Meeting on 23.01.2019 at 11 a.m. Ext.P1 letter does not indicate as to on what premises the petitioner is called upon to appear before the General Council. The subject mentioned in Ext.P1 would indicate that the issue is relating to misconduct against the President of Kerala State Pharmacy Council.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that Ext.P1 has been issued consequent to his difference of opinion with the President of the Council. The petitioner has

¶26

WP(C) No.2072/2019

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

not committed any professional misconduct. Ext.P1 is therefore unsustainable, contended the petitioner.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶30

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader representing the

¶31

1^st respondent.

¶32

Ext.P1 does not indicate as to under which statutory provision it has been issued. Rule 88 of the Kerala State Pharmacy Council Rules, 2012 reads as follows:-

¶33

“88. An inquiry with a view to the removal of a name from the Register under section 36 shall be instituted by the issue of a notice in writing on behalf of the Executive Committee by the Registrar addressed to the pharmacist. Such notice shall specify the nature and particulars of the charge and will inform him of the day on which the Executive Committee intend to deal with the case and shall call upon the pharmacist to answer the charge in writing and to attend before the Executive Committee on such day. The notice shall be in Form, 'K' with such variations as circumstances may require and shall be sent three weeks before the date of enquiry.”

¶34

(Emphasis supplied)

¶35

A perusal of the Rules would indicate that for taking disciplinary action against a Pharmacist under Rule 88, the

¶36

WP(C) No.2072/2019

¶37

: 5 :

¶38

respondents are expected to disclose the nature and particulars of the charge against the Pharmacist in the notice. Ext.P1 does not indicate any aspect of the allegations/charge against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be required to appear before the General Council Meeting without disclosing the facts based on which the appearance of the petitioner is ordered.

¶39

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to desist from proceeding with Ext.P1. If respondents 2 and 3 propose to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner, it shall be done only in compliance of the Rules and Regulations and after indicating to the petitioner of the nature and particulars of the charge against the petitioner.

¶40

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/28.01.2021

WP(C) No.2072/2019

: 6 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 11.9.2018 SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY REPLY NOTICE SENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶47

Vinod Kumar P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rejumon Varghese Vs Government of Kerala

T.M.Abdul Hameed Khan Vs Government of Kerala

Rejumon Varghese Vs Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited

Gopinathan Palakkal Vs Union of India

P.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.N.R Vs the Kochi Corporation