IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 2242 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR. ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN V.K., R.M.O. DISTRICT HOSPITAL, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, TRICHUR. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DELETED AS PER ORDER DTD.19.1.07. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 2242/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SUPDT. DISTRICT HOSPITAL, THRICHUR. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 2242 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T While the petitioner was working as a Resident Medical Officer of District Hospital, Thrissur, he was served with Ext.P1 order whereby, for certain alleged misconducts, the petitioner was issued with a warning. The petitioner is challenging the same on several grounds. Fist is that the 1st respondent, who has issued Ext.P1, has no disciplinary powers against the petitioner and, therefore, Ext.P1 is without jurisdiction. The second is that the order has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice insofar as the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to show cause or hearing. The petitioner therefore, seeks the following relies: “(i) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1. (ii) an order of stay of Ext.P1, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.” 2. No counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. Ext.P1 reads thus: “PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT HOSPITAL, THRISSUR. Sub:- DH Tsr- Court duty of Dr. Shammy Wilson (Contract Doctor) served to Dr.Ayyappan by the direction of Dr.V.N. Aravindakshan, Civil Surgeon & RMO - Direction of duty-Warning issued- w.p.c.2242/07 2 Ref:- --------------------- ORDER NO. A1-5891/06/DH TSR DATED: 1/1/2007. It is understood that a Summons from the Sessions Court, Thrissur, for Dr. Shammy Wilson (Contract Doctor) was brought here by a Policeman. On enquiry, it is noted that the Policeman who brought the Summons was directed to contact the R.M.O. Later the Summons was served in the name of Dr.Ayyappan and this was in response to the direction given by RMO. The action by RMO is to be considered as highly irregular and this may even amount to be a contempt of Court, if the Court decides so. Also this is dereliction of duty on the part of RMO as he is avoiding his duty to attend the Court. A “Warning” is issued to Dr. V.N. Aravindakshan, Civil Surgeon & RMO, of this hospital to never repeat this in future. Being for the first time, further disciplinary action are not proceeded with taking a lineant attitude and considering that this has happened out of ignorance and not a purposeful one. Dr. V.N. Aravindakshan, Civil Surgeon & RMO is instructed to accompany Dr.Ayyappan to attend the Court on 2/1/2007 without fail. Dr. M.S. SASIKALA SUPERINTENDENT To Dr. V.N. Aravindakshan, Civil Surgeon & RMO. Copy to:- 1. The Dist. Medical Officer of Health, Thrissur (with C.L.). 2. Dr. D. Sreekanth, Asst. Surgeon & ARMO. (He is instructed to make duty arrangements among CMO's) 3. File.” It is not disputed before me that the 1st respondent who has issued Ext.P1 is not the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. Essentially Ext.P1 constitutes a punishment of warning, which could have been imposed on the petitioner only by the disciplinary authority. Insofar as the 1st respondent is not the disciplinary authority, he could w.p.c.2242/07 3 not have validly issued Ext.P1. Secondly, Ext.P1, on the face of it, does not show that before passing Ext.P1 order, the petitioner had been given a show cause notice or an opportunity of being heard. At the least the petitioner is entitled to a notice before passing an order like Ext.P1, which has not been done, not to mention and an enquiry and a finding on materials on record, which are absent in this case. Therefore, Ext.P1 is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice especially since such a warning would result in civil consequences and humiliation to the petitioner. For all the above reasons, Ext.P1 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge