The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.1539 of 2019 ----- Dr. Milind Kumar Sinha .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : For the State :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.II ----- Order No.10 Date: 19.02.2024 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the direction as contained in letter no.19/Arop-Me.Co.(M.G.M.)- 05/18.16(19)/Ranchi dated 16th January, 2019 (Annexure-1 to
Decision
the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit rupees one lac in the light of the notice issued by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi on a complaint filed by one Urmila Verma, daughter of Late Sukhdeo Ram, who died due to alleged medical negligence on the part of the doctors on duty including the petitioner as was informed by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 2. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for the alleged medical negligence on his part who happened to be the Unit In-charge of Department of Surgery, 2 M.G.M. College & Hospital, Jamshedpur in which he was imposed punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect vide notification dated 28th February, 2019. So far as the impugned letter dated 16th January, 2019 is concerned, the respondent authorities cannot compel the petitioner to deposit rupees one lac, treating the same as an amount to be recovered from the petitioner in connection with the show cause notice issued by the National Human Rights Commission to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand presupposing that the petitioner had also committed medical negligence along with concerned doctor, namely, Dr. Laxman Hansda, who had initially operated the deceased-Sukhdeo Ram. The petitioner being the Unit In-charge of the Department of Surgery in M.G.M. College & Hospital, Jamshedpur has already been punished in the departmental proceeding for the alleged negligence treating the same to be a misconduct on his part. However, vide impugned letter dated 16th January, 2019, the said amount has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner without issuing any notice to him or initiating any fresh enquiry to that effect. Thus, the impugned letter being arbitrary in nature is liable to be set aside. 3. On the contrary, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Sr. S.C.II appearing on behalf of the respondents, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that as per the report submitted by the enquiry committee consisting of four doctors, it was found that the petitioner 3 being the Unit In-charge of the Department of Surgery of the said medical college and Dr. Laxman Hansda, Assistant Professor who had performed initial surgery of the patient- Sukhdeo Ram had committed medical negligence. In this regard, a complaint was also filed by said Urmila Verma before the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi. A show cause notice dated 28th August, 2018 was issued by the National Human Rights Commission to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi as to why Rs.2.00 lacs under Section 18(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 be not paid as compensation to Urmila Verma for the negligence committed by the concerned erring doctor of M.G.M. College & Hospital, Jamshedpur i.e. the petitioner. Pursuant to the said show cause notice, a decision was taken to recover rupees one lac each from the petitioner as well as Dr. Laxman Hansda, as they were found jointly responsible for the death of Sukhdeo Ram. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of relevant materials available on record, it appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with respect to incidence of medical negligence due to which the patient- Sukhdeo Ram had died on 16th November, 2017. Copy of the notification dated 28th February, 2019 has been annexed as Annexure-F in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, on perusal of which it appears that the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. So far as 4 the impugned letter dated 16th January, 2019 whereby a decision was taken to recover an amount of rupees one lac from the petitioner and was directed to deposit the same is concerned, it was an independent action against the petitioner in addition to the said departmental proceeding. Hence, it was mandatory on the part of the respondent authorities to issue a prior show cause notice calling upon him to explain as to why the said amount should not be recovered from him. By denying the said opportunity to the petitioner, he was prevented from giving appropriate explanation to the respondent authorities against the said recovery. 5. The respondents have also not stated in the counter affidavit as to whether pursuant to issuance of show cause notice dated 28th August, 2018 by the National Human Rights Commission any final order in the concerned case was passed by it, directing the State of Jharkhand to recover the amount of compensation from the concerned doctors including the petitioner. In absence of any such order passed by the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, it was not open to the respondent authorities to straightaway issue the impugned letter dated 16th January, 2019, communicating the decision to recover rupees one lac as part of compensation from the petitioner. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned letter dated 16th January, 2019 issued by the respondent no.2 cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, quashed. 5 7. This Court is also not inclined to remand the matter to the concerned authority to take a fresh decision on the present issue, which would, in fact, be a futile exercise as it is evident from the impugned letter itself that the respondent authorities were predetermined to recover the said amount from the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Sanjay/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)