SHIRAS N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P12 communication issued to him by the Director of the Malabar Cancer Centre Society as per which, he has been notified that certain acts of misconduct have been found against him and that an enquiry is proposed.

(2.) The petitioner says that he has been raising his voice against certain misdeeds in the Cancer Centre Society and that he has been, therefore, continuously haunted by its competent Authorities. He says that this is evident from the fact that he had been earlier imputed with various allegations - which are limpid from Exts.P1,P3,P4 and P6 - but that after enquiry, all of them have been concluded, imposing minor punishment and censure. He says that, however, the respondents are now attempting to revisit him with the same allegations and to initiate a further enquiry under the guise of Ext.P12 charge memo and that this amounts to double jeopardy, which is contrary to the constitutional imperatives. He thus prays that Ext.P12 be quashed and that the respondents be directed not to take any further action against him.

(3.) In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Cancer Centre Society, Sri.P.Sreekumar, submits that, as is manifest from Ext.P12, none of the allegations made against the petitioner through Exts.P1,P3,P4 and P6 are now sought to be enquired into, but that they have been narrated therein only to show the background of the present allegations against him. He then submitted that the petitioner had wilfully and deliberately refused to present himself before the Counselling Committee, though he was notified of the same through Ext.P9; and that instead of doing so, he has issued Ext.P10 informing that he is not willing to do so. The learned Standing Counsel submits that, in addition, certain new misconducts have been found against the petitioner, particularly that he is not wearing a mask even inside the operation theatre, thus imperilling not merely the patients but also the doctors and other support staff. He submits that, therefore, Ext.P12 seeks only to enquire into those allegations which have been noticed against the petitioner after Exts.P1,P3,P4 and P6.