DILIP DINESHCHAND VAIDYA DR Vs. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT SHETH V S HOSPITAL AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was in the year 1968 appointed as Honorary Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the K. M School of Post Graduate Medicine and Research was subsequently appointed as Professor in the same Institute and was working as such when he came to be suspended by an order dated 24-9-1987 pending departmental inquiry on the charge of prescribing mainly the drugs of Om Pharmaceutical Company to the patients taking treatment in Orthopedic Unit III of which the petitioner was the Head. The petitioner has challenged the said order of suspension on various grounds

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner was working as Honorary Professor in the month of September 1987. He was on leave upto 30-9-1987. On 22-9-1987 Dr. Surendra Patel Shri Anilbhai Chinai and Dr. Vora who are members of the Board of Management of this institution took a round of Wards Nos. 5 and 9 of the V. S. Hospital to which the petitioner was attached in his capacity of Honorary Professor. They found during their visit that so far as Unit-III of which the petitioner is the Head is concerned medicines of Om Pharmaceuticals alone were prescribed at the instance of the petitioner who has got financial interest in that Om Pharmaceutical Company. They found on inquiry from the staff that these medicines were not prescribed when they were working in the other hospitals but they started prescribing these medicines after coming to Unit-III. The said members of the Board inferred that this was not possible unless the petitioner who was Head of the Unit must be insisting to prescribe these medicines. They felt that the petitioner had misused his position and given directions to the resident staff to prescribe medicines of only Om Pharmaceutical Company which was serious matter. They wrote a letter dated 24-9-1987 to the Mayor Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation who also happens to be the (Chairman of the Board of Management of the V. S. Hospital Ahmedabad. On receiving that letter the Mayor in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board of Management of V. S. Hospital wrote a letter to the Superintendent V.S. Hospital bringing these facts to his notice and directed that in anticipation of the approval of the Board of Management departmental inquiry may be started against the petitioner and pending the inquiry the petitioner may be immediately suspended. This letter was received by the Superintendent on that day at 5-30 P.M as per the endorsement made by him below the said letter and on that very day at 6 P. M. the Superintendent V. S. Hospital in his capacity as the Director of the Institute and Superintendent of the V. S. Hospital passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension. It is stated in the said order that the order was being passed on the directions of the Chairman of the Board of Management of the institute and that the suspension was pending departmental inquiry on the charge of prescribing mainly the drugs of Om Pharmaceutical Company to the patients taking treatment in Orthopaedic Unit-III. The petitioner was on leave at that time and be filed this petition on 25-9-1987.

(3.) Mr. M. A. Panchal learned Advocate who has filed caveat on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 viz. the Board of Management of V. S. Hospital and the Superintendent of V. S. Hospital appeared and after having heard Mr. Desai for the petitioner and Mr. M. A. Panchal for these two respondents ad-interim relief was granted and it was mentioned in that order that the petitioner shall continue on leave upto 30-9-1987 as per the statement made by Mr. Desai for the petitioner. That interim relief has been continued on the same terms pending hearing and final disposal of this petition. After the arguments of Mr. Desai were heard and before the arguments of Mr. Panchal for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for respondent No. 3 were heard Rule was ordered to be issued with the consent of the learned Advocates and the matter was taken up for final hearing on 3 1987 Mr. Desai stated that he had already advanced his arguments 85 earlier and therefore he did not want to advance any further arguments after the issuance of the Rule. This is how the matter has now been finally heard instead of hearing only with regard to the interim relief.