Form ‘Monitoring Committee’ to assess attendance of Govt docs: HC

Holding that the resignation submitted was doubtful, Justice S M Subramaniam directed the State to initiate all appropriate actions against the petitioner Dr Silamban under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for unauthorised absence.

He also directed the authorities to lodge a complaint with the Medical Council of India (MCI) enabling it to institute appropriate proceedings under the Statute and the Regulations. Also, directing the authorities to recover adequate compensation from the government doctors, violating the terms and conditions of their services with reference to the expenditures met out from the public money for acquiring PG degrees and specialty degrees, Justice Subramanian said, “Apart from the corrupt practices in the Government Hospitals, it is painful to note that the doctors themselves are irregular in attending duty, resulting in death of patients, who are not in a position to afford quality treatment from Corporate Hospitals.”

“Frequent complaints are noticed across the State that the government doctors are developing their private practice by neglecting the public duty. It is a misconduct both under the Government Service Rules as well as under the Medical Council of India Regulations. Thus, adequate steps are highly warranted,” he added.

The petitioner, a Tutor in the Department of Anesthesiology at General Hospital, Chennai had submitted that since his parents were unwell, and he was also suffering from chronic back pain, he had submitted his resignation letter to the Dean, Madras Medical College on December 20, 2010.

But while he was under the impression that his resignation letter was accepted, he received a letter from the dean on December 25, 2011, seeking explanations for his unauthorised absence from March 1, 2011 onwards and for not having passed the prescribed examination. Based on this, the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, also issued a letter asking him to explain why his passport should not be impounded.

However, the State disputed his contentions stating that the very sanctity of the resignation letter submitted by him is not genuine. The said letter had not been received by the dean and that the said doctor had applied for medical leave and subsequently abstained from coming to the hospital. Noting that the petitioner has committed an act of misconduct as per MCI norms, the government advocate had submitted that the said doctor had resumed his private practice by undergoing the Specialist Course from and out of the taxpayers’ money and is now refusing to serve the public at large.