The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is an order dated 4th May, 2018 passed by the respondent no.2. Mr. Dhar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the respondent no.6 before the West Bengal Medical Council
(in short, the WBMC) an explanation was sought for from the petitioner. Thereafter, by a memo dated 21st July, 2014, a charge was framed against
the petitioner. The final order was passed and communicated on 30th November, 2017 intimating that the WBMC at its extraordinary meeting held on
20th September, 2017 has directed removal of the name of the petitioner from the register of the Registered Medical Practitioners, maintained by the
WBMC for a period of one year from the date of communication of the order.
Challenging the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 26 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 and the appellate authority passed an
order on 22nd February, 2018 observing that the WBMC in its proceedings of meeting did not furnish detailed charges and observations on the basis of
which the WBMC could have imposed penalty upon the petitioner and the case was sent back to the WBMC for review and it was directed to pass a
reasoned order.
By the said order, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was stayed up to 22nd March, 2018. Thereafter the petitioner was not granted any
opportunity of hearing by the WBMC prior to issuance of an order dated 21st March, 2018 wherein it was inter alia observed that there would be no
revision of the punishment pronounced earlier. Thereafter, the appeal was again heard by the respondent no.2 and the impugned order was passed.
Mr. Dhar submits that the impugned order is a cryptic one and has been passed on the basis of an erroneous recording that after granting due
opportunity to present his case, the WBMC has passed the order on 21st March, 2018. He further submits that it would be explicit from the order
dated 21st March, 2018 that the initial charge levelled against the petitioner was altered when the matter was sent back for review.
Per contra, Mr. Bhowmik, learned advocate appearing for the WBMC submits that the orders dated 20th September, 2017 and 21st March, 2018
were passed by the WBMC upon strictly complying with provisions of law and upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. He further submits
that the order is an appealable one in terms of Section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
upon an order of this Court passed on 1st September, 2011 in W. P. No. 781 of 2011.
Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the order impugned in the present writ petition is an appealable one. The
principles of natural justice have been duly complied with by the appellate authority and there has been no error in the decision making process
warranting interference of this Court. In reply, Mr. Dhar disputes the contention of the learned advocates appearing for the respondents and submits
that the WBMC itself in the communication memo dated 30th November, 2017 indicated that an appeal may be preferred against its order as per
Section 26 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914.
Indisputably, the respondent no.2 upon perusal of the order impugned in the appeal before him arrived at a finding that the WBMC did not furnish
detailed charges and observations on the basis of which it could have imposed penalty upon the petitioner and accordingly by an order dated 22nd
February, 2018 the said respondent no.2 sent the matter back to the WBMC for a review with a further direction to pass a reasoned order. By the
said order dated 22nd February, 2018, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was also stayed up to 22nd March, 2018. In review no opportunity of
hearing was granted to the petitioner by the WBMC.
Prima facie, the order passed by the WBMC on 21st March, 2018 does not fulfil the directions contained in the order dated 22nd February, 2018
passed by the respondent no.2. A perusal of the order dated 21st March, 2018 passed by the WBMC upon review reveals that the initial charge
imposed upon the petitioner was sought to be substituted by new charge and such substitution was construed to be an appropriate reasoning by the
respondent no.2.
The respondent no.2 did not arrive at any categoric finding that the charge stands established against the petitioner. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the
impugned order the respondent no.2 had simply quoted the observations made by the WBMC in the orders dated 21st March, 2018 and 20th
September, 2017 and the appeal has been dismissed only on the basis of an observation made in paragraph 6 that the WBMC has gone into details of
the case and meticulously arrived at a conclusion.
In the said conspectus, I do not think that a restraining order will cause a greater loss and prejudice to the respondents than the absence thereof is
likely to cause to the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be an interim order in terms of prayers “f†and “g†of the writ petition till the end of
September, 2018 or until further orders whichever is earlier. The respondents are directed to file their affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks from
date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter for final hearing after expiry of
the period, as fixed above, towards exchange of affidavits.
