1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5420 OF 2007. (Dr.Laxman Pandurang Moudekar .v. State of Maharashtra and another) Shri S.G. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 17TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 20TH JANUARY, 2009 ORDER Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 10th April, 2007 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application No. 659 of 1995, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the present writ petition. 2 The brief facts giving rise to the petition are as under:- 3. The petitioner, who was working as Incharge Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Narkhed, District Nagpur, by 2 an order dated 16th September, 1994, was awarded the punishment of withholding one increment permanently for a period of three years in a Departmental Enquiry against him. 4. The petitioner was charged for negligence in duty. It so happened that on 19.07.1990, a case of snake bite to one Ramdash Raghu Karochi was reported at Primary Health Center, Narkhed. The petitioner was Incharge Medical Officer. The petitioner had failed in his duty, namely, not reporting to the police authorities being a Medico Legal Case and not performing his duties as Medical Officer, such as to provide timely medical assistance to the patient. The Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and as a result of Departmental Enquiry, the order dated 16th September, 1994 came to be passed. The petitioner filed Original Application No. 659 of 1995 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as MAT, Nagpur for the sake of brevity). The learned MAT found no fault with the order impugned passed by the competent authority and dismissed the Original Application. 5. Shri S.G. Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the matter in proper perspective. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time when the snake bite 3 incident occurred, the petitioner was not on duty in the Primary Health Center. It was further submitted that Dr. Nandekar was attending the Primary Health Center at the relevant time and he had attended the snake bite case. It was further submitted that Dr. Nandekar had not taken proper care and the petitioner is made scapegoat of the incident and for no fault of him, the punishment was awarded to him. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and in the preliminary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has observed that Dr. Nandekar is responsible for the negligence in treatment of the snake bite to patient Ramdash Raghu Karochi and referred the matter against Dr. Nandekar to the superior authority. It was further contended that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not available in the Primary Health Center and as such, the petitioner was not at all responsible for the alleged negligence. 6. Shri S.G. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the book “Taylor's Principles And Practice Of Medical Jurisprudence” and submitted that as observed in the said book, “Medical negligence is a complicated subject and the liability of the doctor will always depend upon the circumstances of the particular case”. By relying this observation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to show that the petitioner 4 is liable for medical negligence. 7. On the other hand, Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is just and legal. It was submitted by the learned AGP that the petitioner was the Incharge Medical Officer and it was the duty of the petitioner being Medical Officer, to give time and immediate medical assistance to the patient who was brought to the Primary Health Center for the snake bite. On the contrary, the petitioner had shown negligence in giving timely treatment to the patient. It was further submitted that the petitioner has also not taken necessary steps such as to inform the police authorities being the Medico Legal Case. It was further submitted by the learned AGP that though the petitioner has submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was attending his private clinic, he has failed to bring any evidence to show that the petitioner was attending his private clinic. It was further submitted by the learned AGP that the petitioner cannot take benefit of certain observations in the preliminary enquiry for the reason that further Departmental Enquiry was conducted by following the due procedure and as such observations in preliminary enquiry were of no consequence. In the Departmental Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer by considering the material as well as by considering the say of the petitioner/delinquent, has arrived at 5 the conclusion that the petitioner was found negligent in performing his duties, such as not to provide the timely medical assistance to the patient. It was observed by the Enquiry Officer that Dr. Nandekar, who has failed in his duties, at the same time, it was for the petitioner to provide timely medical help to the patient if Dr. Nandekar has not performed his duties and as such the Enquiry Officer held Dr. Nandekar as well as the petitioner are responsible for the negligence in duties. Learned AGP has further submitted that in view of the Departmental Enquiry, the punishment awarded to Dr. Nandekar is of dismissal from the service; whereas the petitioner is awarded lesser punishment. 8. In our considered opinion, the learned Member, MAT has considered the matter thoroughly and found that the petitioner has failed to discharge his duties diligently. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that the competent authority i.e. Disciplinary Authority by applying the required procedure has awarded appropriate punishment to the petitioner. We are of the view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the matter, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Tribunal nor it can be said that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate. We also find that the petitioner who was the Incharge Medical Officer at the Primary Health Center, Narkhed was duty bound to attend the patient brought to the Primary Health Center as 6 well to report the police authorities being Medico Legal Case, but the petitioner has failed in his duties. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Member, MAT, Nagpur and such no interference is called for. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.