IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO.3801 OF 2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
KARWAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES M.G. ROAD KARWAR – 581 301 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEAN AND DIRECTOR ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.MAMATHA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. PROFESSOR DR. P.I.INAMDAR S/O.ISHWARAPPA H.INAMDAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS C/O.M.V. RAIKAR KAMAKSHI KRUPA OPPOSITE TO SHIVANATH TEMPLE SONARWADA, BAAD KARWAR – 581 306 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) ROOM NO.113, 1ST FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.R.BHASKAR FOR SRI S.V.JOGA RAO AND SRI S.YASHWANT PRASAD, ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 R/W RULE 27 OF THE W.P.RULES PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.26099/2018 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the second and third respondents.
2. The first respondent was an employee of the institution run by the appellant. The first respondent was working as a Professor of the Forensic Medicine. A proceeding was initiated against the first respondent by the Karnataka Medical Council for professional misconduct. The first respondent had conducted an exhumation of a body as a part of his duty and has submitted a report about the cause of death. A complaint was filed against the first respondent about his professional misconduct in connection with the report submitted by him which was enquired by the Karnataka Medical Council. The Karnataka Medical Council came to the conclusion that the first respondent has violated the code of medical ethics and passed an order on 5th May 2018 directing the removal of the name of the first respondent from the register of the medical practitioners for a period of one year from 19th May 2018. The Registrar of the Karnataka Medical Council communicated the said order to the appellant. The appellant forwarded the communication issued by the Secretary of the Medical Council to the State Government. The State Government passed an order on 11th June 2018 directing that the first respondent shall be removed and relieved from the service on the basis of the order passed by the Karnataka Medical Council. Based on the order of the State Government, the appellant issued an order of removing the first respondent from service. The first respondent filed a writ petition in WP.No.26099/2018 before the learned Single Judge challenging the said order. By the impugned order dated 27th June 2019, the learned Single Judge has set aside both the orders by reserving a liberty to the concerned respondents to the writ petition to proceed in accordance with law. He passed an order of reinstatement and the consequential benefits.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that an enquiry has already been conduced by the Karnataka Medical Council. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had removed the first respondent from the employment without holding any enquiry is totally incorrect. Her submission is that as the name of the first respondent was removed from the register of the medical practitioners for a period of one year, the appellant has taken the action of removal based on the order passed by the State Government. She would, therefore, submit that the impugned order is erroneous.
4. It is not in dispute that as per the order of the Karnataka Medical Council, the period of disqualification of the first respondent has expired on 18th May 2019. It is an admitted position that an appeal preferred by the first respondent before the Medical Council of India against the order of the Karnataka Medical Council is pending.
5. Based on the allegation of dereliction of duty or misconduct, it was always open for the concerned authority to initiate a Departmental Enquiry against the first respondent. During the pendency of the Departmental Enquiry, even the question of passing an order of suspension could not have been considered. The finding recorded by the Karnataka Municipal Council is not final in the sense that a statutory appeal preferred by the first respondent is pending before the Medical Council of India.
While setting aside the order of removal of the appellant, the learned Single Judge has granted a liberty to the appellant to proceed in accordance with law against the first respondent. Even if the order of the disqualification of the first respondent has come to an end, that will not prevent the appellant from initiating an appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for removal of the first respondent. In fact, a liberty was reserved by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-5 of the impugned order. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is dismissed.
Pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE LB