DR. T.C. BARJATIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "In illness the doctor is a father;in convalescence a friend;when health is restored, he is a guardian."

(2.) THIS famous Indian proverb has made us to believe that "doctors are next to God for a patient" In common parlance faith and confidence of a diseased person or his parents vis   -vis a doctor is of such a high stature that during treatment he acquires a status akin to God. This common perception or a myth, which is prevalent since time immemorial, is subject matter of judicial scrutiny in the present case. Petitioner, Dr. T.C. Barjatia, has ventilated his grievances against the impugned order dated 25th August 2006 (Annex.4) by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE petitioner, thereafter, has switched on to order dated 4th June 2002, whereby enquiry officer was appointed against him. During the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer in all examined 11 witnesses. At this stage, the petitioner has also made an endeavour to impress upon this Court that the requisite operation of Master Javed was performed with the verbal consent of the parents. By alleging these facts, according to the petitioner there was no iota of evidence to attribute any sort of negligence on the part of the petitioner in performing the operation of Master Javed. Thereafter, the petitioner has pleaded that neither the enquiry report was furnished to him nor any notice as envisaged under Article 311(2) of the Constitution was served on him and straightway the impugned order dated 25th August 2006 (Annex.4) was passed whereby penalty of compulsory retirement from service with proportionate pension was inflicted on him. The assertion of the petitioner in the writ petition is that while passing the impugned order, mandatory provision of Article 311(2) of the Constitution was given go -by by the respondent. While making comments on the impugned order, the petitioner has also alleged in the writ petition that the enquiry report was not furnished to him and the disciplinary authority has merely observed an empty formality of publishing the show cause notice envisaged under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in two local newspapers which are not widely circulated in the area. As regards the notice sent to the petitioner at his residential address, the petitioner has averred that at the relevant time he was posted at Degana and Sojat City, and therefore, the said notice should have been sent to him at his official address. Thus, in sum and substance, the submission of the petitioner is that publication of notices in the local newspaper and sending a notice at his residential address is nothing but a camouflage and as such it is a total noncompliance of the law. Adverting to the impugned order, the petitioner has attacked the same on the ground that the same has been passed without application of mind and the foundation of the said order is the report of the preliminary enquiry and not the regular enquiry which was conducted as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958.