SK ABDUR RAUF Vs. WEST BENGAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule is directed against the order of the West Bengal Medical Council, a statutory body, dated September 1, 1969, that petitioner's name be removed from the Register of the Registered Medical Practitioners. The petitioner was registered under section 15 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. The petitioner stated that in the usual course of his professional work, he maintains a case register in which names of the patients with the dates of the treatment and medicines prescribed are entered. In course of his professions work, the petitioner treated Smt. Ajmiran Khatun, wife of Yasin Khan, an employee of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., having its office at No.13, Lindsay Street, Calcutta-16 and Amina Khatun, the daughter of the said employee. The petitioner treated them from March 21, 1967 and March 30, 1967 and gave injections to the patients and also issued the essentiality certificate to them on April 8, 1967. On April 29, 1967 the petitioner lodged a diary with the officer-in-charge, Karaya Police Station to the extent that the period mentioned in respect of the patients aforesaid was a mistake. The Officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation (S.P.E.), West Bengal is at No. 13, Lindsay Street, Calcutta-16, where the office of State Trading Corporation is located.

(2.) The respondent No.4, an officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation come to the petitioner's chamber and wanted to see the case diary for the patients maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner verbally protested against such want on interference with his professional work, but, being the police officer concerned the petitioner had to yield and produced the case diary before the officer concerned whereupon the said office concerned questioned the petitioner about the overwritings. The said officer took away the case diary and granted receipt for the same. It is alleged that the complaint was made by the respondent No.4 at the instance of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Be that as it may the respondent No.4 made a report against the petitioner. On the basis of that report the petitioner was asked to show case. The petitioner gave an explanation which was placed before the Penal Cases Committee and on a consideration of that report and the explanation given by the petitioner the mater was sent to the Council for further action. The Council thought that enquiry ought to be held in the matter and enquiry was, in fact, held. At the enquiry the petitioner was given notice to appear and the petitioner did appear and on the same date after hearing the petitioner the impugned order was passed by the Council which was communicated afterwards.

(3.) The short point on behalf of the respondent is that there is violation of the Rules and the Rules were not followed in conduction the enquiry. The Rules which are relevant for the purpose was framed under section 33(2) (b) (c) and (d) of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. The said Notification of the Rules framed are framed under the statutory power under the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. It is not disputed that the Rules as framed are Statutory Rules. For the purpose of procedure to be followed in conducting any enquiry referred to in proviso (b) to section 17 and clause (a) of section 25 of the Act it has been provided as follows: -