The Rajasthan High Court maintained the doctor's mandatory retirement as a form of discipline, refusing relief to a Medical Officer who had submitted an injury report that was factually incorrect in a case.

Noting that the doctor presented a false report and described such behavior as "highly despicable", the HC bench held, "In view of the aforesaid findings, it is apparent that the petitioner has submitted false report and committed dereliction in discharge of his duty. None can undermine the importance of true and correct medico-legal report in the injury cases which has great role in just and fair disposal of the cases. Such a conduct by the Medical Officer is highly despicable as it causes interference with the administration of justice."

The petitioner was charged with providing false information in the injury report that was created after an individual was examined by a medical officer at the Community Health Center in Toaraisingh (Tonk). After that, he received a charge sheet for neglecting his duties in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 via the Memorandum dated January 17, 1998.

The Inquiry Officer judged him guilty after an investigation conducted in accordance with the protocol outlined in Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. As a result, the disciplinary authority punished him with an order dated March 30, 2002, which included mandatory retirement with a proportionate pension, accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

In his plea, the concerned medical officer asked for the charges against him from January 17, 1998, the concurrence letter from the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in Ajmer from March 4, 2002, the punishment order from March 30, 2002, and the consequential relieving order from April 16, 2002, to be quashed. He also asked for the respondents to grant him permission to remain in his position as Junior Specialist (Anesthesia). Nevertheless, the petitioner's attorney limited his prayers during oral arguments to changing the punishment.

The petitioner doctor's attorney contested the severity of the punishment, arguing that he could have measured the patient's injuries with his naked eye and that this could have led to some variation.

He argued that he had served for 23 years prior to the order of punishment and that the penalty of forced retirement with a proportionate pension was wildly unfair given the nature of the charge that was proven to be true against him. As a result, he pleaded for the sentence to be changed to something less severe.

However, the State Counsel objected to the prayer, arguing that the petitioner doctor's punishment was lenient and did not call for the court to become involved. As a result, the State Counsel asked that the plea be rejected.

The medical board's assessment and the petitioner's injury report differed significantly, as the HC bench examined the evidence in the file while considering the case. While the petitioner measured the length of injury No. 1, a sharp-edged injury on the injured person's shoulder, as 3 centimeters, the Medical Board measured the identical injury as four and a half inches or 11.25 cm. This observation was made by the bench.

Similarly, the Medical Board determined that injury No. 2, another sharp-edged damage on the wounded person's head, was 1.25 inches, or 3.75 centimeters, in length, despite the petitioner doctor's finding that it was only 2 centimeters.

The bench noted these results and noted that the petitioner doctor had provided a fake report and had failed to do his duties. The HC bench described the Medical Officer's actions as highly despicable because they interfered with the administration of justice, emphasizing that no one can undervalue the significance of accurate and truthful medico-legal reports in injury cases, which play a significant role in the just and fair disposal of the cases.

"In view thereof, this Court does not find the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority based on concurrence of the RPSC to be shockingly disproportionate to the conscience so as to warrant interference of this Court under its limited writ jurisdiction," observed the bench while dismissing the doctor's appeal.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Priyanka Pandey/MSM)