Medical Council of India (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 — Disciplinary proceedings against doctor — Punishment on charge different from original show cause notice — Violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that once a doctor had successfully explained and defended the original charge levelled in the show cause notice, the Ethics Committee and Executive Committee could not proceed to punish him on a different or altered charge without issuing a fresh show cause notice and without granting an opportunity to respond to the new allegation. Imposition of punishment on a charge not originally framed amounted to denial of fair hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 11, 12)

advocatemmmohan

APEX COURT HELD THAT

Medical Council of India (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 — Disciplinary proceedings against doctor — Punishment on charge different from original show cause notice — Violation of principles of natural justice.
The Supreme Court held that once a doctor had successfully explained and defended the original charge levelled in the show cause notice, the Ethics Committee and Executive Committee could not proceed to punish him on a different or altered charge without issuing a fresh show cause notice and without granting an opportunity to respond to the new allegation. Imposition of punishment on a charge not originally framed amounted to denial of fair hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 11, 12)

Disciplinary Proceedings — Distinction between original charge and altered charge — Delinquent cannot be punished on variance of charge.
The Court held that the original allegation against the appellant-doctor concerned submission of fake faculty declaration forms and simultaneous appearance in inspections of two medical colleges. However, after the doctor successfully demonstrated that he was abroad during one of the inspections, the Ethics Committee shifted the basis of liability to non-disclosure of prior service in another medical college in the declaration form. Such punishment on an altered charge, without notice, was impermissible in law. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

Principles of Natural Justice — Fresh show cause notice mandatory where disciplinary authority proposes to proceed on new charge.
Relying upon Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court reiterated that once a delinquent employee or professional successfully rebuts the original charge, the disciplinary authority cannot punish the delinquent on a completely different allegation without issuance of a fresh show cause notice and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. (Para 12)

Medical Ethics — Mis-declaration in faculty declaration form — Professional misconduct.
The Supreme Court observed that the appellant-doctor failed to satisfactorily explain the incorrect declaration stating that he had not presented himself before any other institution as faculty during the same academic year for purposes of MCI assessment. Such mis-declaration, by itself, constituted misconduct and could not be condoned by the regulatory body. (Paras 13, 16)

Medical Education — MCI/NMC inspections — Importance of faculty declaration forms.
The Court recognised the importance of surprise inspections conducted by the Medical Council of India/National Medical Commission to ensure maintenance of standards in medical education and observed that declarations submitted by faculty members play a crucial role in the approval process undertaken by the regulatory authority. (Paras 6.1, 6.3)

Constitution of India — Article 142 — Modification of punishment to do complete justice.
Though the Court found substance in the allegation of mis-declaration, it exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to modify the punishment considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, including the doctor’s advanced age, lapse of nearly a decade since initiation of proceedings, and prolonged pendency of litigation. The punishment of removal of the doctor’s name from the Indian Medical Register for three months was reduced to issuance of censure/warning. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

Administrative Law — Judicial review — Court may interfere with quantum of punishment in exceptional circumstances.
The Supreme Court held that although the process undertaken by the Medical Council of India was not entirely faulted and misconduct was established, interference with the quantum of punishment was warranted in exercise of extraordinary powers to ensure complete justice between the parties. (Para 16)

Result — Civil Appeal allowed partly — Penalty modified from removal from Indian Medical Register for three months to censure/warning.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and requested the National Medical Commission to substitute the punishment of removal of the doctor’s name from the Indian Medical Register for three months with a lesser penalty of censure/warning. (Paras 16, 17)