While the KMC principal insisted on seeing the "original order", Dr Saif's lawyer said the order is on the high court website and is deemed valid.
Published Sep 23, 2023 | 7:37 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 23, 2023 | 9:13 PM
A contempt of court case has been filed against the principal of the Kakatiya Medical College (KMC) in Telangana for not allowing a PG medical student, arrested and suspended earlier for abetting the suicide of a junior student, to rejoin the institution.
The High Court of Telangana had, on 11 September, set aside the suspension of the student, Dr MA Saif Ali. His counsel moved the contempt of court petition after the college refused to allow him to rejoin the course.
Principal Dr Divvela Mohandas allegedly demanded to see the original court order.
Dr Ali was arrested by the Warangal police and later suspended by the KMC authorities on charges of bullying and harassment of Dr Dharawath Preethi — a first-year postgraduate student — who died on 26 February after allegedly attempting suicide.
Dr Ali’s lawyer Srikanth Chintala said that his client first went to the college on 13 September but the “contemnor” (Principal) denied him permission, saying he had not received a copy of the court’s order.
“My client again approached the principal on 20 September along with the online judgement copy, which was uploaded on the high court website on 19 September. But the principal once again deliberately denied him permission to rejoin and said that he should receive the original order from the court directly,” Srikanth told South First.
He noted that Dr Ali also informed the principal that the government pleader concerned was present in the court when the judge pronounced the order, setting aside this suspension.
“The judge had read the operative portion of the order in the open court in the presence of standing counsels representing the KMC,” the lawyer said.
He alleged that the principal also threatened Dr Ali, saying that he would not be allowed to rejoin irrespective of the number of court orders he might get in his favour.
Srikanth said the principal was demanding a stamped and signed order. “But these are deliberate actions and there is no meaning to it,” he said.
The lawyer said that judges take time to sign original orders and provide an official copy. Hence, the copies are uploaded onto the website.
“Sometimes the judges are overburdened with several cases. So it is not practically possible for a single judge to scrutinise every line, pass orders, and sign them every day. The physical copy of the order, in this case, is expected to come in a week or 10 days,” Srikanth said.
He added that there was a previous high court order stating that government officials cannot insist on an official certified copy.
“They were asked to verify the orders on the website. Even during the bail order by a district court, the police used to refuse saying that orders were not certified. But a few years ago, the high court directed all officials and the lower courts to verify if an order was uploaded on the high court website. And if it is available on the court website, then it is deemed certified,” Srikanth claimed, adding that Dr Mohandas could not be ignorant of the court’s order.
“Does he not have a duty to verify by contacting the government pleader and check whether he has to comply with the high court order or not,” he asked.
Justice Surepalli Nanda is likely to take up the matter on Monday, 25 September.`
Acknowledging that he sought the original order from Dr Ali, Principal Mohandas told South First that a decision would made based on the advice of the government pleader. “The process is already on, but we have not so far received the original copy.”
“I consulted the Director of Medical Education and even the top officials sought the original order. Now, we are also checking the website for the order’s copy,” Dr Mohandas, who is also the Additional Director of Medical Education (DME), added.
While revoking Dr Ali’s suspension, the high court noted that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to while suspending Dr Ali, and there was a clear disregard for the law.
“The court said that the proceedings to suspend Dr Ali not only violated the principles of natural justice but also contravened Regulation 23 of the National Medical Commission (Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges and Institutions) Regulations of 2021,” Srikanth had told South First earlier.
The lawyer said the court noted that the college’s decision to suspend Dr Ali was grounded on assumption rather than any conclusion.
“The court observed that the college had taken the decision based only on suspicion, and not any outcome or conclusion,” Srikanth said.
Two days later after Dr Preethi allegedly attempted suicide, Dr Ali was arrested by the police for his role in the alleged suicide attempt on 24 February.
Dr Preethi passed away on 26 February at the NIMS Hospital in Hyderabad, and the college suspended Dr Ali on 4 March.
After spending about two months in jail, Dr Ali was granted bail on 20 April.
In his petition filed in the high court seeking revocation of his suspension, Dr Ali said the KMC extended his suspension on 9 June without allowing him an opportunity to present his side, which went against Regulation 23 of the National Medical Commission rules.
The college also ignored Dr Ali’s representations dated 28 April, 23 May, and 2 June, which contended that his suspension was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice.
Dr Ali petitioned that he had been falsely implicated in the case of the alleged suicide of Dr Preethi.
He claimed that the KMC ragging committee’s findings were biased as he was not allowed to participate in the proceedings or defend himself.
Dr Ali 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 inquiry report are against the principles of natural justice, perverse, contrary to the facts and evidence, and unsustainable in the eye of the 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,” Dr Ali’s petition said.
