IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1731 of 2010 In CWJC No.1958 of 1996 With I.A. No. 9410 of 2010 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1731 of 2010 ============================================ Dr. Rajendra Kumar Rajesh - Appellant Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. -Respondents =========================================== Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Sinha For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jha, GA-2 Mr. Binodanand Mishra, A.C. to G.A.-2. ============================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02. 02.11.2010 Reg: I.A. No. 9410 of 2010 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 70 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Reg: L.P.A. No. 1731 of 2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 24th June 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above 2 C.W.J.C. No. 1958 of 1996. The appellant-writ petitioner is a Medical Doctor. At the relevant time he was employed in the Medical Service of the State of Bihar and was posted at Sadar Hospital, Sasaram. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in respect of the medical examination of a rape victim, an eight year old girl. It was alleged that the appellant and the other doctors on the team were deliberately negligent in carrying out proper examination. After holding due enquiry by order dated 16th December 1995 made by the State Government the appellant was dismissed from the service. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 1958 of 1996 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. D.K. Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant was one of the members of the examination team. He being a Pathologist was not directly involved with the physical examination. Unless the pathological samples were sent to the appellant; the appellant had no role to play. The appellant, therefore, could not have been charged for alleged negligence. We have perused the record and the findings 3 recorded by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has in no uncertain terms recorded; “…..Once one of the doctor of the Board had suspected it to be a case of rape her conduct or the conduct of the petitioner in capacity of Pathologist to ignore the all important aspect of examining the objective finding of rape by holding pathological test of vaginal swab cannot be held to be a minor lapse on the part of the petitioner……..” It is further observed; “……Thus the aforesaid finding of chain of events examined either individually or collectively will lead to one and only conclusion that the petitioner had in league with the lady doctor and the Orpadaecian- cum-Radiologist submitted a false and misleading first injury report……” It is further held that; “…..the petitioner in capacity of Pathologist was in fact solely responsible for failing in collecting vaginal swab from the victim of rape, about which there was no doubt from beginning…...” The Court found that there was direct complicity on the part of the petitioner. In view of the finding of the complicity of the appellant supported by the materials on record, We see no merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate. Further, We are informed at the bar that since dismissal from 4 service, the appellant does not do anything. In other words, the appellant is out of touch with the medical profession for the past 15 years. There cannot be any question of reinstating the appellant in service. For the aforesaid reasons, We dismiss this Appeal in limine. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)