Dr Saif was suspended on charges of ragging and harassment of Dr. Dharawath Preethi — the first-year postgraduate student of the KMC.
Dr Saif claimed that the suspension was imposed without granting him an opportunity to be heard. (Supplied)
The Kakatiya Medical College (KMC) in the Warangal district of Telangana has said in an affidavit in the state high court that it diligently followed all necessary procedures and appropriately suspended Dr MA Saif Ali from the institution.
The college was responding to a petition filed by Saif for the revocation of his suspension from the institution on charges of ragging and harassment of Dr Dharawath Preethi — a first-year postgraduate student who died on 26 February after allegedly trying to end her life earlier.
The hearing of the case is scheduled on Thursday, 13 July.
Saif claimed in his plea to the Telangana High Court that his suspension was imposed without granting him an opportunity to be heard.
This, he said, was in violation of Regulation 23 of the National Medical Commission (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges and Institutions) Regulations of 2021.
Regulation 23 states: “The inquiry or investigation shall be conducted thoroughly including on-the-spot or site of the incident in a fair and transparent manner, without any bias or prejudice, upholding the principles of natural justice and giving adequate opportunity to the student or students accused of ragging and other witnesses to place before it the facts, documents and views concerning the incident of ragging, and considering such other relevant information as may be required.”
The college, in its affidavit, said that the allegation of not giving an opportunity to be heard before suspending him for one year was incorrect.
Meanwhile, Saif’s advocate said that the affidavit was merely a replica of the theories propagated in the media.
“They disregarded both the law and the principles of natural justice. It is evident that the college principal acted in a manner that aligns with the wishes of the media or political figures,” Advocate Srikanth Chintala, who represents Saif, told South First.
On 22 February, Saif was booked in a case registered at the Matwada Police Station under various sections of the law, including Section 306 and 354 of the IPC, Section 4(v) of the TS Prohibition of Ragging Act, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act of 2015, over his purported role in the alleged suicide of Preethi. He was arrested on 24 February.
Preethi passed away on 26 February at NIMS Hospital in Hyderabad, while Saif was suspended from the college on 3 March.
After spending approximately two months in jail, Saif was granted bail on 20 April.
The Warangal police filed a 970-page chargesheet on 7 June in the SC/ST court naming Saif as the primary accused.
Preethi, belonging to the Banjara-Lambada community in the ST category, was subjected to harassment and ragging by her senior, Saif, they said.
Saif said on 9 June that the Kakatiya Medical College suspended him without allowing him an opportunity to present his side, which went against the NMC regulations of 2021.
The college also ignored Saif’s representations dated 28 April, 23 May, and 2 June, which Saif said was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice.
Saif petitioned that he had been falsely implicated in the case involving the alleged suicide of Preethi.
He claimed that the ragging committee’s findings were biased as he was not given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings or defend himself.
Saif also asserted that the committee’s conclusions were one-sided, vague, false, and in violation of the governing regulations.
“The alleged findings of the ragging committee in its enquiry report are against the principles of natural justice, preserve, contrary to the facts and evidence and unsustainable in the eye of law solely on the grounds of being violative of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was neither made a party to such proceedings nor given a chance to be heard,” read Saif’s petition.
It added that the entire probe was conducted on one single day and the punishment was imposed on the next day, which was “self-conclusive” of the fact that “the enquiry is highly biased, prejudiced and under the influence motivated media trials and external factors”.
Principal Dr Divvela Mohan Das said that Saif was heard by the committee headed by the head of the Department of Anesthesia, Dr K Nagarjuna Reddy, along with three assistant professors, and the detailed inquiry was recorded by the members of the committee.
He also said the report was submitted to the anti-ragging committee as per the procedure laid down under Regulation No 23 of the NMC Regulations 2021.
The principal also said that Saif was called personally several times by the principal and HoD of Anesthesia and informed of the action to be taken following the principles of natural justice.
It should be noted here that in the same affidavit, the principal stated that Saif was heard only once by the department committee and later by himself.
The principal also said that Saif was also made party by the anti-ragging committee and heard, with the same report submitted in the high court.
It should be noted that the anti-ragging committee sat for the first time on 1 March — after Saif’s arrest on 24 February. He was suspended on 3 March.
The committee heard his contention only on 1 June in the form of a letter from him.
The principal said that on 21 March, the HoD Dr Nagarjuna Reddy and the assistant professors of the Anesthesia Department heard both Saif and Preethi.
Saif explained that he warned Preethi about incomplete Pre-Anesthesia Checkups (PACs) at the Government Maternity Hospital (GMH) where she had asked perform them, instead of doing them herself.
Preethi, on the other hand, claimed that Saif used harsh words and expressed anger towards her during the PACs.
She also assured the department that she only sought help from interns for measuring the blood pressure, and that she would not repeat it.
The professors inquired whether Saif’s strictness was limited to PACs and hospital-related matters or extended to personal issues. Preethi responded with a firm “No.”
Later that day, Dr Nagarjuna Reddy and Saif met with the principal, who instructed the HoD to ensure that Preethi and Saif were not assigned hospital duties together.
The next morning, Preethi was found unconscious at MGM Hospital, and Saif was subsequently arrested by the police on 24 February. This was the only detailed inquiry conducted prior to these tragic events.
The principal said that the petitioner was also given a chance and was heard by him and the HoD of the Anaesthesia Department even though there was a lot of public uproar and political pressure to suspend immediately.
However, it should be mentioned that the public uproar and political pressure to suspend him came after Preethi was found unconscious on 22 February.
“The petitioner’s contention of Violation of Regulation No 23 does not arise as he was served notice along with suspension orders on 4 March. He did not receive such orders for the reasons being his officially notified home address was changed, he is not attending at working place (Department of Anaesthesia) as he was in police remand,” said the principal in the affidavit.
He also alleged malafide intention on Saif’s part in submitting applications and requesting permission to attend classes.
“Yes, Saif was arrested, and it was known to the college. There was no obstruction preventing them from serving a copy of the suspension notice while Saif was in jail. They could have served the notice through the court or the police if necessary,” said Srikanth Chintala.
The principal said that Saif was aware of his suspension and submitted his request letter to attend classes on 28 April after his release from remand.
“The petitioner cleverly submitted his representation showing that he was unaware of suspension notice with malafide intention to approach the high court to get a writ of mandamus and join classes,” alleged the principal.
Saif’s lawyer Chintaka added that the principal claimed that Saif was given an opportunity.
“They allege that Saif was aware of his suspension but manipulated the situation by submitting multiple letters to the college. If Saif was playing smart, does that imply that the college is incompetent in understanding and providing a written notice? Can a single student outsmart an entire institution and the state? Are they so inept that they cannot comprehend their legal obligations and serve a simple notice?” asked Chintala.
Saif in his petition said that being punished without due process and based solely on accusations was unjust and contrary to the law.
Saif expressed his faith in proving his innocence in a court of law, but feared that the suspension would jeopardise his career opportunities and infringe upon his basic right to life.
The petition also said: “It is a settled proposition of law that no person is guilty unless proven otherwise and merely based on accusations, such a harsh punishment is unsustainable and contrary to the law more particularly for being violative of the Governing Regulations and violative of principles of natural justice.”
May 05, 2024
May 05, 2024
May 05, 2024
May 05, 2024
May 04, 2024
May 04, 2024
