Dean Maulana Azad Medical College ... vs Dr. Budh Priya Rahul
2009 Latest Caselaw 1492 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of Decision: April 20, 2009

+        L.P. A No. 165/2009 & CM Nos. 5402/2009 & 5403/2009


         DEAN MAULANA AZAD MEDICAL COLLEGE & ANR.
                                              ..... Appellants
                    Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with
                             Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advts.

                        versus

         DR. BUDH PRIYA RAHUL                      ..... Respondent
                       Through:         Nemo.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

                     ORDER

% 20.04.2009

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned

Single Judge dated 24.2.2009. The Respondent(original petitioner in

the writ petition) was issued a MBBS passing certificate on 13.3.2009

on the basis of which he applied for provisional registration with the

DMC and received the provisional certificate on 14.3.2006. The

Respondent started his one year compulsory rotary internship and on

its completion the internship completion certificate (hereinafter ICC)

was issued on 23.3.2007. The Respondent on the basis of this ICC

applied to the DMC for issuance of a registration on 26.3.2007. The

registration certificate was issued on 3.4.2007. The Respondent

appeared in the post-graduate medical entrance test, Delhi. He was

called for counseling on 12.4.2007 and he opted for M.S.

(Orthopeadics) at MAMC. By letter dated 1.5.2007 of the Registrar

(Academic) the HoD (Orthopeadics) Dr. Anil Dhall, was informed that

the Respondent was provisionally selected for the post. Later the

Respondent was directed to submit a joining report. He reported to

the HoD (Orthopeadics) for joining the course but was not allowed to

do so.

2. The Respondent alleges discovering that his name was not on

the list of awardees of the MBBS degree and the same was not

awarded to him without assigning a reason. The letter dated

4.5.2007 was received by him on 8.5.2007 from the Registrar, DMC

informing him that his registration certificate was withdrawn since

his internship completion certificate had been canceled, by MAMC

authorities. On the same day the Respondent received a call from Dr.

J. M. Kaul and he was directed to meet her on 9.5.2007 at 10 a. m.

When he reported on the said date a memorandum, dated 9.5.2007

was handed over to him whereby he was directed to appear before the

inquiry committee on 10.5.2007 at 12 a. m. in connection with the

charges made against him. However, no document was provided to

him apprising him of the allegations and he was further directed to

furnish a written explanation of the alleged misconduct within 24

hours. The Respondent sent a letter dated 10.5.2007 requesting

extension of time for filing of the written explanation, but the same

was not granted.

3. The Appellant(Respondent in the writ petition) countered the

allegations put-forth in the petition stating that the Respondent had

approached the court with unclean hands and suppressed material

facts alleging that he had forged signatures of the coordinators/In

charge on the attendance records and manipulated in the process of

obtaining the ICC.

4. Counter affidavit was also filed by the University of Delhi in the

writ petition wherein it was stated that MAMC had informed that the

ICC was issued to the Respondent inadvertently and there was

shortage of attendance on his part. This, according to the Univeristy,

rendered him ineligible for the ICC; the certificate was

withdrawn/cancelled. It was also averred that a show cause notice

was issued to the Respondent, to which he did not respond. However,

the details of the said show cause notice were not provided.

5. The DMC in its counter affidavit filed in the writ petition had

admitted that a certificate of registration dated 3.4.2007 was issued

to the Respondent by them but the same was withdrawn as a

consequence of their receiving a communication (letter dated

1.5.2007) from the MAMC that the ICC was issued to the Respondent

inadvertently since on a scrutiny it was discovered that he was short

of attendance. The ICC stood cancelled on this ground. On the basis

of this letter, the DMC withdrew the certificate of registration by order

dated 4.5.2007.

6. It was the case of the Respondent in the writ petition that

MAMC denied any fair opportunity to him; it did not properly notify

him of any charge, and gave him no chance to defend himself.

According to the Respondent, the MAMC's alleged notice, intimating

about the holding of an inquiry on 27.4.2007 was never received by

him. He submitted that by then the authority had already decided

the course of action they were going to adopt. As per the Respondent

the action in withdrawing the ICC certificate was, thus, illegal. The

Respondent also submitted that he was not informed/intimated

about the precise nature of the charges leveled against him or even

appraised of the documents and materials forthcoming and sought to

be relied upon by the authorities to conclude as they did, that he had

forged the records so as to obtain the ICC.

7. The Respondent contended that he had attended all

compulsory subjects of rotatory internship programme and was

entitled to the ICC.

8. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions and

rival contention of all the parties and discussing in detail the relevant

stand of the parties has rightly come to the conclusion that

considering all MAMC records and files revealed that the Respondent

was never invited to join the inquiry committee proceedings held on

19.4.2007 and 24.4.2007. There was no proof of his having received

the memorandum dated 20.4.2007. The MAMC did not show if he

was supplied any documents in connection with the allegations

leveled against him. On 8.5.2007, the Respondent was for the first

time instructed to appear before the inquiry committee (of the

university) on 9.5.2007 to which he complied and thereafter he was

issued a memorandum dated 9.5.2007 and directed to explain within

24 hours the reasons for the alleged forgery and why disciplinary

action should not be taken against him for alleged misconduct. He

was further directed to appear before the committee with a written

explanation on 10.5.2007 at 12 a. m. The learned Single Judge has

rightly held that this document too though termed as show cause

notice was bereft of any details or specifics of any allegations made.

The suggested disciplinary action had already been taken against the

Respondent as by letter dated 1.5.2007 his internship completion

certificate was withdrawn and as a result of which he was not issued

as MBBS degree and his registration with the Delhi Medical Council

was also cancelled, by letter dated 4.5.2007, which was received by

him on 8.5.2007, issued by the Registrar of the Council.

9. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that as per

the counter affidavit filed by the University of Delhi, it appeared that

it unanimously took the decision to cancel application of the

Respondent to the MS (orthopeadics) course and that was offered to

another candidate for the counseling held on 29.5.2007. This

decision was conveyed to the Respondent by a letter. It was not

denied by the Appellants that the Registrar (Academic), who was also

member of the inquiry committee issued two letters dated 26.4.2007

(for medical examination of the Respondent) and 1.5.2007 (informing

the HoD (orthopeadics) about the selection of the Respondent for the

said course). Before the issuance of these letters, the enquiry

committee had already been constituted and meetings had already

been conducted. Further, the person, who issued these letters was

also on the Board of the inquiry committee who had knowledge of the

enquiry pending against the Respondent.

10. Neither the memorandum issued to the Respondent on

20.4.2007 by MAMC nor the show cause notice issued by the

University on 9.5.2007 outlined the specifics of any allegations. It

did not say how and for what misconduct the authorities proposed to

withdraw the ICC. Learned Single Judge thus rightly held that these

documents could not be termed as notices at all. Furthermore, it

appears that the authorities had substantially determined the

Respondent's guilt on 24.4.2007 itself even before the date fixed for

inquiry proceedings. The inquiry proceedings alleged serious

misbehavior and misconduct of the Respondent, including forgery.

Neither did the Appellants choose to press criminal charges nor were

the statements of those whose signatures appeared to have been

allegedly forged or copied do not even appear to have been recorded.

It is well settled principle of natural justice that no one should be

condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It

should appraise the party clearly of the case that he has to meet. It

is but essential that the parties should be put on notice of the case

before any adverse order is passed against him. The authorities were

required to at least follow a minimum fair hearing procedure which

they unfortunately failed to do.

11. The learned single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion

that the procedure adopted by the Appellants in not providing the

Respondent a hearing before withdrawal of the internship completion

certificate which led to the cancellation of his Delhi Medical Council

registration and non-issuance of the MBBS degree, was thus an

arbitrary action and liable to be struck down. The denial of proper

and fair procedure has caused great damage to the Respondents

name and reputation, loss of two years in his career as well as cast a

shadow on his conduct. To many a man, his professional reputation

is the most valuable possession. The actions of the Appellant are

clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and against the basic principles and

tenets as enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution of India.

12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal must fail. We see

no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Withdrawal of the ICC certificate has been rightly quashed by the

learned Single Judge.

13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. CM Nos. 5402/2009 and

5403/2009 stand disposed of accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J

APRIL 20, 2009 Rb/RS