Case Note & Summary
The court ruled that the prolonged delay in initiating and conducting disciplinary proceedings—five years after the incident and nine years in total constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that an expert committee had already exonerated the petitioner and should not be subjected to further mental agony. The inquiry officer’s report further supported the petitioner's case, establishing that the charges were unproven. Therefore, the inquiry was declared unwarranted, and the petitioner's pensionary benefits were ordered to be released immediately.
The court quashed disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired professor of Goa Medical College (GMC), ten years after the incident in question. The court also ordered the immediate release of the petitioner’s pensionary and retirement benefits. The delay in inquiry proceedings, coupled with the exoneration of the petitioner by a committee of expert doctors, formed the crux of the court’s decision.
1. Introduction of the PetitionThe petitioner seeks to quash disciplinary proceedings initiated against him ten years after the incident and requests the release of his pensionary benefits.
2. Petitioner's Professional BackgroundThe petitioner, a former Professor and Head of the Department of Surgery at GMC, retired in 2018 after an extended tenure, with the incident in question dating back to July 2010.
3. The IncidentA specialist in female diseases requested the petitioner's assistance in performing emergency surgery on a patient suffering from acute appendicitis. Despite successfully completing the operation, complications arose later, leading to the patient's re-admission and eventual death in October 2010.
4. Post-Operation ComplicationsThe patient was re-admitted due to complications and was operated on again by a team at GMC. Despite stabilizing, the patient’s condition deteriorated, and she passed away.
5. Complaints and InvestigationFollowing the patient's death, her sister filed a complaint in August 2010, alleging medical negligence. The patient's father later filed another complaint in December 2011. A government committee and the Disciplinary Committee of the Goa Medical Council conducted investigations.
6. Vigilance and ChargesThe Directorate of Vigilance issued charges against the petitioner after a preliminary inquiry. However, by 2016, the Disciplinary Committee found no substantial evidence and exonerated the petitioner.
7. Retirement and Disciplinary NoticeDespite being exonerated, the petitioner was served a notice in July 2020, two years post-retirement, regarding the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.
8. Government Advocate’s OppositionThe Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition, arguing the inquiry was at its final stage and should be completed.
9. Petitioner’s Exemplary RecordThe court noted the petitioner's continued service and three-year extension post-incident, with no further complaints against him.
10. Exoneration by Medical CouncilThe Goa Medical Council exonerated the petitioner after a detailed inquiry, finding no negligence in his conduct during the surgery.
11. Delay in InquiryThe court acknowledged that the inquiry was initiated five years after the incident and prolonged for nine years due to no fault of the petitioner.
12. Government Advocate’s Request to Continue InquiryThe government requested the court allow the inquiry to proceed to its conclusion, but the court found this unreasonable given the circumstances.
13. Final Inquiry ReportThe court reviewed the final inquiry report from September 2024, which found the charges against the petitioner unproven.
14. Court's Decision on DelayGiven the delays and the exoneration by the expert committee, the court decided against subjecting the petitioner to further disciplinary action.
15. Mental Agony and Case LawCiting cases like P.V. Mahadevan v. Md. T.N. Housing Board and State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, the court ruled that the petitioner had endured enough mental agony and should not face further inquiry.
16. ConclusionThe petition was allowed, quashing the disciplinary proceedings and directing the release of the petitioner's pensionary and terminal benefits.
17. Order on CostsThe court did not pass any order regarding costs.
Acts & Sections Discussed: Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The petition was filed under this provision, enabling the court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose. Subjects:Quashing of belated disciplinary proceedings due to inordinate delay.
Goa Medical College, disciplinary proceedings, delay in inquiry, medical negligence, pensionary benefits, writ petition under Article 226.
Issue of Consideration: Dr. Dilip Amonkar Versus State of Goa & Anr.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
