B RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. L C OBULESU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is not a party to the writ petition, but has been permitted to file the instant appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order in W.P. No. 9725 of 1995. The 1st respondent, who is an Asst. Professor in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, has filed the above writ petition questioning the legality and validity of an order passed by the 2nd respondent-Andhra Pradesh Medical Council, directing removal of the name of the 1st respondent from Medical Register, for a period of three months, holding him guilty of infamous conduct, in issuing an improper and false post-mortem certificate, on account of which the appellant had been implicated as an accused in a criminal case. Learned single Judge, having noticed the provisions of A.P. Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, as amended by A.P. Medical Practitioners Registration (Amendment) Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder, held that there was violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the enquiry by the A.P. Medical Council against the petitioner-1st respondent, was vitiated. The writ petition was therefore allowed and the impugned order in the writ petition was quashed. The appellant, having obtained leave for appeal from this Court, filed the instant writ appeal.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the writ petition, are as follows : In 1993 one Amrutaraj was murdered in Cuddapah town. The post-mortem examination was conducted by the appellant herein, who was then working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at District Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah. In the said post-mortem examination the appellant found only two injuries on the abdomen and opined that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to the said two injuries. In the inquest report four injuries on the body of the deceased were noticed i.e., two injuries on the abdomen, one injury on the head and another injury on the right eye-brow. In view of the discrepancy between the inquest report and the post-mortem report, at the request of the Investigation Officer, the body of the deceased was exhumed and another post-mortem examination was conducted by the 1st respondent-petitioner. The 1st respondent, thereafter, issued the post-mortem certificate stating that there were three injuries on the body of the deceased i.e., two injuries on the abdomen and 3rd injury on the head. On the strength of the second post-mortem certificate, a charge-sheet was filed against A.1 to A.6 in the case and also against the appellant, under Sec. 201, I.P.C., as A.7, alleging that he issued a false post-mortem certificate without disclosing the head injury. The appellant was, however, subsequently discharged as no sanction was obtained from the Government. Subsequently, the case ended in acquittal as against A.1 to A.6 also. The appellant, thereafter, made a complaint to the A.P. Medical Council stating that the police, in collusion with the other doctor-petitioner, managed to get a second post-mortem certificate, which was false, which resulted in implicating the appellant as accused in the criminal case. Acting on the said complaint, the A.P. Medical Council conducted an enquiry against the petitioner-1st respondent and after considering the case in the light of the report submitted by the Expert Committee and the Ethical Committee, passed the impugned order holding the 1st respondent guilty of "infamous conduct".

(3.) The only serious objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the alleged violations of rules, complained of by the 1st respondent did not cause serious prejudice in defending his case and hence the learned single Judge ought not to have quashed the impugned order and in any event the learned single Judge ought to have remitted the case to the 2nd respondent for a fresh enquiry. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, however, refutes the said contention submitting that the enquiry, being vitiated by violation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice, the entire enquiry is null and void. Therefore, there is no question of making any further enquiry against the 1st respondent.