HC slams action against doctor for not standing on MLA's arrival in emergency ward
Chandigarh (PTI) Expressing dismay over a government doctor deployed on COVID duty in a Haryana hospital facing disciplinary action merely because he did not stand up when an MLA arrived in the emergency ward, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said the State's behaviour was "insensitive" and "highly disturbing".
"Undesirable incidents" of dedicated medical professionals being ill-treated should be checked, a bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor said as it directed the Haryana authorities to issue a no-objection certificate (NOC) required by the petitioner doctor for pursuing a postgraduate medical course and imposed Rs 50,000 as costs on the State.
Petitioner Dr Manoj was a casualty medical officer working with the Haryana government. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he was on duty in the emergency ward of a government hospital. An MLA, during his visit to the hospital, was annoyed that the petitioner did not rise upon his arrival, the plea by the doctor said.
A show-cause notice (SCN) was issued to the petitioner as the State proposed to impose a minor punishment under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016.
The petitioner submitted his reply in June 2024, saying that he did not recognise the MLA and that his failure to stand was unintentional and did not amount to discourtesy.
However, no final order has been passed till date, according to the petitioner.
"We are anguished and amazed at the action of the State in issuing the show-cause notice to a government doctor who was on emergency duty during the COVID-19 period only because he did not rise when the MLA arrived.
"To expect a doctor to rise when an MLA enters the emergency ward of the hospital and to propose disciplinary action against him if he does not rise is highly disturbing.
"The petitioner's explanation that he did not recognise the MLA or that he did not do anything to inflict insult has been completely ignored," read the November 21 order.
"In our view it is insensitive on the part of the State to proceed against the petitioner on such a charge. It would be equally arbitrary to deny him the right to pursue higher medical education by withholding the NOC only because SCN is pending against him," the court said.
Stressing that pursuing medical education is a tough challenge, the court said students must perform exceptionally well even to secure admission in an MBBS course.
It is well-known that medical courses require deep dedication and commitment over prolonged periods. After completing MBBS and joining government service, a doctor is expected to provide medical facilities to the masses. Public representatives and others responsible must extend respect and basic courtesies to such dedicated professionals, it said.
The court said, "With anguish, we note that frequent reports surface in newspapers of dedicated medical professionals being ill-treated by relatives of patients or public representatives without valid cause. Time has come when such undesirable incidents are checked and due recognition is extended to sincere medical professionals."
The bench said that it would be wholly unjust and manifestly arbitrary to allow adverse action against a doctor merely because he did not rise upon the arrival of an MLA. Keeping such proceedings pending for years and denying the petitioner an NOC on such a basis, therefore, cannot be sustained.
"The respondent State is, therefore, directed to issue the NOC to the petitioner forthwith.
"In view of the above, the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed, with costs quantified at Rs 50,000 to be deposited with Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh by the respondent State," the order said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Fresh case registered against activist Snehamayi Krishna
Bengaluru PTI): A fresh FIR has been registered against social activist Snehamayi Krishna for making defamatory statements against a woman.
Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station registered a First Information Report against Krishna on Saturday.
According to the FIR, complainant Pavithra B N (37) alleged that a letter dated December 5 was delivered to her residence, in which Snehamayi Krishna made defamatory allegations regarding the death of her husband and against her advocate, Raghu.
The letter also indicated that a complaint had been submitted to the Mahalakshmipuram Police Station seeking reinvestigation into her husband’s death.
The complainant further alleged that a threatening note was enclosed with the letter, pressuring her to withdraw cases filed against a man named Mylaraappa.
She stated that the mobile number of the person exerting pressure was mentioned in the letter.
Pavithra claimed that the alleged actions had caused severe distress to her family, disrupted her children’s education, created unrest at home and deprived them of peace.
She also accused the persons named in the complaint of using abusive language and issuing life threats.
Police initially registered a non-cognisable report.
After Pavithra obtained permission from the 24th ACMM Court to initiate criminal proceedings, an FIR was formally registered against Snehamayi Krishna and Mylaraappa as per the court’s direction.
Krishna has previously been in the news for lodging complaints and making allegations against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi B M, and others for obtaining Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) alternative sites (plots) against the rules.
The Lokayukta police which investigated the matter filed a closure report, which the special court of public representatives admitted.
On Thursday, he also levelled accusations against Karnataka Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh along with a Karnataka Administrative Services (KAS) officer D B Natesh, the former MUDA Commissioner.
Shalini Rajneesh's office rejected the charges categorically and termed his accusations "defamatory".
On Saturday he apologised for making allegations against the Chief Secretary.
