DR.CHANDESHWAR PD.SHRIVASTAVA, S/O LATE KAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, GOVT, OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ application for quashing of Annexure -16, a notification, containing the punishment order passed against the petitioner awarding him punishment of censure and stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. The said notification was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. 909(18), Health, Patna dated 25.8.1998. Further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to re -fix his pay with increments admissible to him and pay the remaining amounts of arrears also.

(2.) Facts of the case are that, in respect of a case registered with the Aurangabad Town P.S. under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, police forwarded an injured to Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad where petitioner was functioning as Medical Officer. Petitioner examined the injured and found his injuries as simple and gave his report on the back of the requisition of the police as appearing from Annexure -1. However, the injured was admitted in the hospital and was operated upon due to his eye infection and discharged on 21.10.1995, vide Annexure -2. It appears that later on the said injured made a verbal complain before respondent District Magistrate -cum -Collector, Aurangabad and complained about the injury report given by the petitioner finding the injury as simple. On the said verbal complain of the injured, the respondent Collector, vide Annexure -3 dated 3.11.1995, directed the Civil Suregon of Aurangabad to constitute a Medical Board for making an enquiry in respect of the injury of the person and the report submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, Civil Surgeon constituted a Medical Board, vide Annexure -4 dated 4.11.1995, and directed the injured to appear before it on 6.11.1995. The said Medical Board examined the injured and submitted its report. It found that the right eye of the injured was operated and was removed only two days after his admission in the hospital. It had found that as per the injury report the right upper eye -lid was having pan -opthalmitis. Hence it was not very clear whether the injury of the right eye sustained in the occurrence needed evisceration or operation was done due to some other disease from before. The Board also opined that, if evisceration was done due to injury on right eye, then the injury was grievous in nature. It also came to the conclusion that only the petitioner could explain the cause of evisceration.

(3.) LEARNED -counsel for,the petitioner submitted that from the report of the Medical Board it is clear that the petitioner was not asked to appear before the Board and explain as to under what circumstances the operation was held and eye -ball was removed. He also submitted that the Medical Board did not give a definite finding that the eye -ball of the injured was removed only on account of injury caused to it during the occurrence. Upon receipt of the said report, the respondent Collector directed the Civil Surgeon to get the matter enquired into in detail and submit a report which was communicated to the Civil Surgeon vide Annexure -6 dated 30.1.1996. Petitioner also received a letter from the local police, vide Annexure -7, to clarify whether the eye of the. injured was damaged from before or whether it got damaged in the incident. Petitioner replied to the said query of the police, vide Annexure -7/1, and clarified that upon examination he had found that the injured was suffering from pan -opthalmitis which could not develop within six hours, when the occurrence is said to have happened and, therefore, as per his opinion and report the eye of the injured was damaged from before.