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.
Mamata’s decision not to quit part of her protest against Centre, EC: Raut
Mumbai (PTI): Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut on Wednesday backed West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s decision not to quit after her defeat in the assembly polls, calling it a part of her protest against the Centre and the Election Commission of India.
Talking to reporters, Raut asserted that it is necessary to unite against the “dictatorship of the Centre and partisan behaviour of the Election Commission”. He said the poll body has become “slaves” of the Centre.
The Opposition has to decide whether it has to contest the polls or not, he said.
“Mamata Banerjee is not resigning is part of her agitation against the government (Centre), the Election Commission (EC) and a series of acts against democracy,” Raut said.
It has to be seen what direction the agitation takes, he added.
Alleging that the West Bengal assembly poll verdict was “not a people's mandate but a conspiracy”, Banerjee on Tuesday refused to resign as chief minister.
The BJP sealed a landslide victory with 207 seats in the 294-member assembly, ending the TMC’s uninterrupted 15-year rule. Banerjee dismissed the outcome as “engineered” and asserted that her party was fighting the Election Commission, not the BJP. The TMC could only manage 80 seats.
In a post on Facebook, Raut said Banerjee’s decision not to quit is fully justified. He also sought to draw a parallel with the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis.
The then Chief Justice of India had observed during hearings on petitions seeking the disqualification of rebel MLAs of the undivided Shiv Sena that Uddhav Thackeray, who headed the party at the time, could have been reinstated as chief minister had he not resigned, Raut said.
The Rajya Sabha MP said Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray had called up Banerjee after the polls and extended support. Almost all INDIA bloc leaders have called Banerjee and extended their support to her.
“We have to come together if we have to unite against the dictatorship of the Centre and the partisan behaviour of the EC or the way the poll body has become slaves of the government,” Raut said.
He claimed that even many in the government do not agree with the “degradation of democracy”.
