Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ardaman vs Medical Council Of India & Others on 1 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
2023:PHHC:105035
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
206(1) CWP-19890-2016
DR. ARDAMAN SINGH
... Petitioner
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS
... Respondents
206(2) CWP-16761-2016
DR. RAVDEEP SINGH
... Petitioner
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS
... Respondents
AND
206(3) CWP-18511-2016
Date of Decision: 01.08.2023
DR. VIJAY KUMAR SHARDA
... Petitioner
VERSUS
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & OTHERS
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate and
Mr. Bikramjit S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-19890-2016 &
CWP-16761-2016.
None for petitioner in CWP-18511-2016.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.1 and 2 in all cases.
Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate
for respondent No.3- in all cases.
Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for respondents No.4 and 5 in all cases.
****
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 17-09-2023 10:44:00 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -2- 2023:PHHC:105035
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
A batch of three writ petitions is being decided by a common
judgment as counsel for the parties submit that identical questions of law arise
for adjudication in the present batch of writ petitions. For the facility of
reference, the facts are being extracted from CWP-19890-2016 titled 'Dr.
Ardaman Vs. Medical Council of India and others'.
Challenge in the said petition is to the order dated 21.07.2016
(Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.1- Medical Council of India (as it
was then) directing the removal of the name of the petitioner from the Indian
Medical Register for a period of one year from the date of the notification.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
an MBBS doctor and has done his MD in medicine. He was earlier employed
with Army and thereafter joined the Punjab Government as a Faculty member
in Punjab Medical Education Department. The petitioner worked as Sr.
Resident in the Department of Medicine at GMC, Patiala from the year 2001
to 2004 and was thereafter promoted as Assistant Professor and then as an
Associate Professor. He superannuated on 31.03.2015 while working as a
Professor in the Medicine Department at GMC, Patiala under the Director,
Research and Medical Education, Punjab. While working at GMC, Patiala, the
Medical Council of India conducted an inspection on 17.11.2014, wherein the
petitioner attended as a faculty member of the GMC, Patiala.
Post his superannuation, from the GMC, Patiala, the petitioner
was appointed as Professor in the Department of Medicine in Haryana
Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital on 01.04.2015. The abovesaid
college was newly established and no medical courses were being undertaken
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -3- 2023:PHHC:105035
at that point of time since requisite permission and recognition from Medical
Council of India was yet to be obtained. An inspection of the Haryana
Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital was conducted by the team of
Medical Council of India on 18.04.2015, which was again attended by the
petitioner. The said inspection was conducted for 150 seats for starting the
Course of MBBS, however, noticing various deficiencies, the Medical
Council of India did not grant recognition/ permission for starting the MBBS
Course in the abovesaid Institute for the said academic year. The petitioner
was thereafter, offered re-employment by the GMC on 11.05.2015.
Accordingly, the petitioner tendered his resignation from the Haryana Institute
of Medical Sciences and Hospital on 13.05.2015 which was accepted on
15.05.2015. The petitioner thereafter joined on his re-employment with the
GMC, Patiala on 16.05.2015.
However, a notice dated 09.12.2015 was served upon the
petitioner pointing out that in the declaration forms for the academic year
2015-16, the name of the petitioner appeared in more than one Medical
College i.e. in the GMC, Patiala inspection held on 17.11.2014 as well as in
the inspection of Haryana Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital held on
18.04.2015. It was thus conveyed that the Professional Conduct, Etiquette and
Ethics Committee has pointed out that the petitioner has taken up appointment
at two different medical colleges at the same time.
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show
cause notice giving details as mentioned above and pointing out that there was
no mis-declaration ever made by the petitioner. However, notwithstanding the
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -4- 2023:PHHC:105035
same, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 21.07.2016 (Annexure
P-11), which reads thus:
"Whereas, the Medical Council of India constituted a Sub-
Committee for scrutinizing the fake declaration form submitted
by the various faculty during the assessments of medical colleges
for the academic year 2015-2016. The Sub-committee noted that
the name of some faculty appeared in more than one medical
college during the assessments
Whereas, during the investigation, the Sub-Committee
observed the following in the matter of Dr. Ardaman Singh
(whose name had been appeared in two different medical
colleges i.e. (1) Government Medical College, Sangrur Road,
Patiala, Punjab-147001 and (2) Haryana Institute of Medical
Sciences, NH-152, Ambala Road, Kaithal - 136 027, Haryana
during the assessments for the academic year 2015-16):-
"The faculty was present for inspection in Govt Medical
College Patiala on 17.11 2014 and has been accepted as
faculty thereafter, he is found in inspection on 18.04.2015
in Haryana Institute of Medical Sciences & Hospita,
Rohtak. He has been accepted as faculty there also. In the
declaration form of Haryana Institute of Medical Sciences
& Hospital, Rohtak he has enclosed the relieving order
which is in Punjabi and relieved on 31.3.2015.
However, in the declaration form of Haryana Institute of
Medical Sciences & Hospital, Rohtak, he has not
mentioned about his presence at MCI assessment at Govt.
Medical College, Patiala
An explanation be sought from the faculty"
Whereas, the Ethics Committee of the Council investigated
the matter and recorded the statements of Dr. Ardaman Singh.
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -5- 2023:PHHC:105035
Whereas, the Dean/Principal of Government Medical
College, Sangrur Road, Patiala, Punjab-147001 and Haryana
Institute of Medical Sciences, NH- 152, Ambala Road, Kaithal -
136 027, Haryana, was also asked to present before the Ethics
Committee but he has neither appeared before the Committee nor
sent any reply in pursuance to MCI letter.
Whereas, the Ethics Committee considered the above
matter at its meeting held on 3 & 4 May, 2016. The operative
part of the decision reproduced as under:
"...
The Ethics Committee further noted that both the Dean of
respective medical colleges neither appeared before the
Committee nor sent any reply in pursuance to MCI letter
The Ethics Committee further noted that Dr. Ardaman
Singh, Professor of Medicine, had appeared for MCI
Assessment on 17.11.2014 at Government Medical
College, Sangrur Road, Patiala, Punjab, and again
appeared before the MCI Assessment team on 18.04.2015
at Haryana Institute of Medical Sciences, Ambala Road,
Haryana. The fact of his first appearance at Government
Medical College, Sangrur Road, Patiala, Punjab, was not
disclosed in the Declaration Form submitted at Haryana
Institute of Medical Sciences, Ambala Road, Haryana, for
assessment on 18.04.2015
The Ethics Committee further noted that the above act of
faculty, is the violation of Point No. 2 of Declaration
Form, which is punishable under Point No. 5 of the same,
which reads as under:-
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -6- 2023:PHHC:105035
I have not presented myself to any other institution as a
faculty in the current academic year for the purpose of
MCI inspection.
It is declared that each statement and/or contents of this
declaration and /or documents, certificates submitted
along with the declaration form, by the undersigned are
absolutely true, correct and authentic. In the event of any
statement made in this declaration subsequently turning
out to be incorrect or false the undersigned has understood
and accepted that such misdeclaration in respect to any
content of this declaration shall also be treated as a gross
misconduct thereby rendering the undersigned liable for
necessary disciplinary action (including removal of his
name from Indian Medical Register).
In view of above, the Ethics Committee discussed the
matter in detail and after detailed deliberation
unanimously decided that the name of Dr. Ardaman Singh
be removed from the Indian Medical Register for a period
of 1(One) Year from the date of notification"
The above recommendations of the Ethics Committee
approved by the Executive Committee the Council at its meeting
held on 15.06.2016."
He further refers to the inspection form that has been appended
by the respondent-Medical Council of India in its reply as Annexure R-1/1
wherein the details with respect to the time period during which the petitioner
has worked in different medical colleges has been specifically mentioned.
Further, in column Nos.3(a) and 4(a) thereof, the description of the
employment/relieving has again been mentioned by the petitioner. However,
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -7- 2023:PHHC:105035
he draws attention to the declaration attached to the aforesaid Annexure
wherein in Paragraph No.2 thereof it has been mentioned as under:
"I have not presented myself to any other Medical
Collge/Institution as a faculty/Resident in the current academic
year for the purpose of MCI assessment."
It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that there was no
intention of any mis-declaration since all the particulars had been given by the
petitioner in Column Nos.3(a) and 4(a) mandating details of previous
appointment/teaching experience of the petitioner alongwith his date of
superannuation and relevant supporting documents. The aforesaid aspect in
the declaration has to be scored off, however, due to inadvertence, the same
was submitted. The bonafide of the petitioner is well reflected from a
complete and comprehensive reading of the aforesaid declaration as a whole
and one single page cannot be listed out to impose the penalty of removal of
name of the petitioner from the Rolls of Indian Medical Register. It is also
contended by the counsel for the petitioner that even though the respondents
hold that it was a misconduct, however, they have not referred to any
provision under the Statute and/or the Regulations under which the abovesaid
aspect can be labelled as misconduct which could attract a penalty of striking
off the name of the petitioner by the Medical Council of India. It is
vehemently argued that the sequence of the events clearly shows that the
petitioner was never employed at two medical colleges at a same point of time
and that any selective reading of the declaration/documents cannot be
substituted as a proof. The burden lay upon the respondents to establish the
claim made by them and also refer to the Regulations/Provisions of the
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -8- 2023:PHHC:105035
Statute, which empowers it to strike off the name of the petitioner-Doctor on
occurrence of any such eventuality.
Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has placed
reliance upon the aforesaid declaration appended as Annexure R-1/1 to
contend that the petitioner failed to make a correct declaration and more so,
the concerned Dean/Principal of the GMC, Patiala as well as the Haryana
Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital chose not to appear before the
Committee despite notices having been sent to them. It is thus contended that
since the said persons have chosen not to appear and there was a mis-
declaration made by the petitioner during the course of the inspection
conducted by the Medical Council of India, hence, it establishes that the
petitioner had been employed in two medical colleges during the same period.
On a pointed query, he could not make reference to any provision
under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and/or the Regulations
thereunder as per which there is/was a prohibition on a Doctor to be employed
in two different medical colleges and/or such employment was considered as
an act of misconduct, which vests the Medical Council of India with the
power to suspend/revoke the registration of a practicing doctor. It was also put
to the counsel for the respondents that in the event of the Dean/ Principal of a
medical college choosing not to appear before the Committee despite a notice
being sent by the Medical Council of India, whether Medical Council of India
could have secured the presence of the said Dean/Principal for establishing its
own case and as to whether any action has/had been taken by the Medical
Council of India for the alleged default committed by the Dean/Principal of
GMC, Patiala and/or Haryana Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital. He
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -9- 2023:PHHC:105035
failed to refer any evidence on the basis whereof it could be established that
any punitive action had been taken against the erring officers, who chose not
to appear despite the notices having been sent by the Medical Council of
India. He submits that in any case, the respondents acknowledge that there
was a mistake in submission of a declaration and that the said admission
would justify the decision taken by the Medical Council of India.
I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
have gone through the documents and record available on case file with their
able assistance.
It has remained uncontroverted that earlier the petitioner was
employed with GMC, Patiala, wherefrom he superannuated on 31.03.2015
and prior thereto, he had attended an inspection of the Medical Council of
India on 17.11.2014. After his superannuation on 31.03.2015, he joined with
the Haryana Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital on 01.04.2015 where
he attended another inspection of Medical Council of India on 18.04.2015. It
is further not disputed that recognition to the abovesaid Haryana Institute of
Medical Sciences and Hospital for 150 seats of MBBS was not granted by the
Medical Council of India. The petitioner was thereafter offered re-
employment by the GMC, Patiala on 11.05.2015. Prior to submission of his
joining report in GMC, Patiala, he had submitted his resignation with the
Haryana Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital on 13.05.2015, which was
accepted on 15.05.2015 (as per the experience certificate appended by him
alongwith the present petition) and he rejoined with the GMC, Patiala on
16.05.2015. The aforesaid sequence, thus, fails to establish that the petitioner
was employed in two different medical colleges at any given point of time.
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -10- 2023:PHHC:105035
The suspicion expressed by the Medical Council of India cannot partake
proof. If the imposition of a penalty of suspending the registration of a
professional was to be imposed, a mere suspicion was not good enough.
Cogent material to establish the charges/ allegations was required to be placed
on record before any such conclusion could be drawn and as such a major
penalty could be imposed upon the petitioner.
It is well established in law that suspicion is not a substitute for
proof. The respondents cannot obviate themselves of their obligation to proof
the charge levelled against the petitioner merely on the ground of suspicion
nurtured by them. Law necessitates existence of objective material for
sustaining a perception/belief; and any such decision which is not
substantiated by any cogent material can only be labelled as conjectural.
Even otherwise, misconduct, if any, would be being employed as
a guest faculty in two different colleges at the same time. The undisputed facts
fail to establish the charge that the petitioner was employed in two different
medical colleges at one time and is at best, submission of a declaration, which
is inaccurate. The same is, however, not the charge on which any punishment
has been imposed.
Further, the respondent-Medical Council of India has failed to
refer to any provision of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and/or
Regulation thereunder as per which there was a prohibition imposed on any
faculty member taking up any assignment at two different places. The counsel
for the respondent-Medical Council of India has also failed to refer to any
provision of the Act/Rules/Regulations notified by the Medical Council of
India, which defines misconduct and establishes that taking up assignment in
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -11- 2023:PHHC:105035
two different medical colleges during the same period would constitute a
misconduct entailing the consequences and liabilities as have been slapped by
the respondent-Medical Council of India.
Referring to the third objection that the petitioner has admitted
the mistake in the declaration and as such the order ought to be upheld, I fail
to find myself in agreement with the abovesaid contention. Not every mistake
entails penal consequences. Bonafide mistake may be required be condoned
and overlooked. It is not upto the respondent-Medical Council of India to pick
up each and every discrepancy and to, thereafter, slap the penalty which it
feels empowered to do so without examining the declaration/forms submitted
as a whole. Needless to mention that the abovesaid declaration has to be read
as a part and parcel of the complete declaration and in continuation of the
details submitted by the petitioner in the accompanying form. A selective
reading of the form ignoring the declaration made in the detailed proforma
may not be permissible. Any and every discrepancy requires to be
harmoniously construed and is not to be seen as an occasion to impose penalty
on a person. Unless there was a malicious intent on the part of the offender to
conceal the information and to mislead the Authorities concerned by giving
information, which was known to the declarant to be wrong, the question of
suffering of any liability as a result of such mis-declaration would not
ordinarily arise. No benefit has also been availed by Haryana Institute of
Medical Science, Rohtak
Further, the issue in question has already been examined by the
Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.5915 of 2015 titled as 'Dr.
Anil Grover (MD-DM Cardiology) Versus Union of India' decided on
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
CWP-19890-2016 + 2 cases -12- 2023:PHHC:105035
03.07.2017, wherein the similar action of the respondent-Medical Council of
India for imposition of penalty of removal of name of a doctor from the
Medical Register was set aside for want of appropriate regulatory
approval/competence and the abovesaid decision of the Single Bench was
upheld by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 27.10.2017 passed in LPA
No.577 of 2017. Counsel for the respondent-Medical Council of India does
not dispute the said aspect as well.
Accordingly, I find that the action of the respondent-Medical
Council of India suffers from grave impropriety and illegality for want of
sufficient proof to establish the charge and has also failed to refer to an
appropriate regulatory provision under which such a punishment order passed
by the respondent-Medical Council of India could be sustained. Consequently,
the impugned orders are set aside.
The petitions are allowed accordingly.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
01.08.2023. JUDGE
rajender
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:105035
12 of 12
