J. BALACHANDRUDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor Venereology, and posted to Siddardha Medical College, Vijayawada. He used to teach students in Dermatology and Venereology. His articles were published in various journals. While so, he was transferred from Siddardha Medical College to Guntur Medical College on work order basis (deputation) in 2012. The 7th respondent, who was promoted recently as Associate Professor in the department of DVL, is also placed in -charge professor/head of the Department DVL, Guntur Medical College. According to the petitioner, there were some disputes between him and the 7th respondent as he objected in several administrative issues in the department. Thus, the 7th respondent developed some sort of enmity against the petitioner. The 7th respondent is the examiner of PG students and she has to approve the thesis/dissertation. She hatched a plan to send the petitioner and in the said process, a complaint was lodged against him alleging that he is sexually harassing lady PG students. On the said complaint, the Principal, Guntur Medical College, enquired into the matter and thereafter, appointed a committee, which after recording the statements of the witnesses, submitted a report to the Principal on 12.09.2014. The said report was communicated to the Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who in turn, cancelled the deputation of the petitioner with immediate effect and requested the Principal, Guntur Medical College, to relieve him immediately. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved on 16.10.2014 and he joined in the parent department. While so, on 14.09.2014, news item was published on 14.09.2014 in Deccan Chronicle. Based on the news item, the 6th respondent submitted a complaint along with paper clippings to the 4th respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 8.10.2014 directed the petitioner to submit explanation on or before 18.10.2014, for which he submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the 4th respondent vide notice dated 7.11.2014 directed the petitioner to appear before the Ethics Committee on 26.11.2014. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Ethics Committee and a questionnaire was supplied by the 4th respondent, and the petitioner answered all the questions. Thereafter, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the Committee, which took a decision on 21.5.2015 and concluded that the conduct of the petitioner is disgraceful, in violation of Code of Medical Ethics Regulations, 2002 and placed the matter before the General Body. The General Body of the APMC has approved the decision of the Executive Committee to remove the name of the petitioner from the Medical Register with effect from 20.5.2015 for a period of two years as provided under Section 17(2) read with Section 15 (Code of A.P. Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking to call for the connected records including the proceedings dated 26.5.2015 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner that the respondents did not follow Regulation 8.2 of the IMC Regulations is not accepted by the respondents. According to them, the petitioner was provided with reasonable opportunity twice. The first opportunity was given to submit his explanation and further opportunity was given to appear before the Ethics Committee to make his submissions as well as to engage an advocate and instruct him to appear before the Committee at the time and date mentioned in the summons in order to assist the petitioner. Taking into consideration the statements of 7th respondent as well as lady PG students of DVL Department, the Ethics Committee came to the conclusion that the behavior of the petitioner is un -becoming and disgraceful of a doctor and the same is in violation of Code of Medical Ethics vide IMC Regulations, 2002. The contention that the charges levelled against the petitioner do not fall under Regulation -7 of Regulations 2002 is not accepted by the respondents. According to Regulation 1.1.1 the petitioner shall uphold the dignity and honour of his profession. As per Regulation 1.1.2, the petitioner should be an upright man, instructed in the art of healings. He shall keep himself pure in character and be diligent in caring for the sick. According to Regulation 1.2.1, the principal objective of the honoured ideals of medical profession implied that the responsibilities of the physician extend not only to individuals but also to society. The contention of the respondents is that Regulation 8.8 provides an appeal against the impugned order before the 2nd respondent. As per Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal before the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner failed to avail the statutory remedy made available to him.