Disciplinary Authority Cannot Punish Employee For A Charge Not Originally Framed Without Fresh Show-Cause Notice : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 6) held that a delinquent employee who has successfully defended the charge against him cannot be removed on the new charge on which he was not granted an opportunity to defend.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal filed by a retired paediatrician who had been barred from the Indian Medical Register for three months after failing to disclose, in a declaration form submitted during a National Medical Commission inspection at Patna Medical College, that he had previously served as a faculty member at another institution.

Initially, a notice was issued to the Appellant for the charge of submitting a fake faculty declaration form, which was successfully defended by him before the Ethics Committee; however, when the matter was remitted back for reconsideration, he was found guilty of an act of omission, which was at variance with the original charge of submitting a fake faculty declaration.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Medical Council of India, upholding the Ethics Committee's order, he filed a Writ Petition before the Patna High Court.

The Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and ruled in the Appellant's favour; however, the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal reversed the Single Bench ruling, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Disagreeing with the part of the High Court's order that affirmed the MCI's decision to uphold the Appellant's guilt based on a new charge for which no opportunity to defend was afforded to the Appellant, the judgment authored by Justice Datta referenced Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1009, where it was observed that “once a delinquent employee had successfully defended a charge, the disciplinary authority, in absence of a fresh show cause notice, cannot punish the delinquent employee on a completely different charge which was not framed.”

“…the Executive Committee could not have imposed the punishment without issuing a fresh show cause notice and/or without granting Dr. Narain (Appellant) a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the new/alternative charge under consideration. We quite appreciate that the Executive Committee's decision, to that extent, does suffer from a serious flaw.”, the court said.

Regardless of the fact that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Appellant to defend the new charge, the Court also questioned the conduct of the Appellant for failing to explain the omission made in the declaration form about his previous engagement with the earlier workplace.

“However, despite such flaw, sight cannot be lost of the fact that Dr. Narain has failed to answer, with any degree of conviction, why and how was the mis-declaration21 made, which was alleged in the Executive Committee's order dated 21st July 2016. Failure to explain such a brazen mis-declaration, ipso facto, would afford a ground to view such mis-declaration as misconduct. Such mis-declaration on the part of Dr. Narain could not have been condoned by the Executive Committee.”, the court observed.

Taking note of the Appellant's age of 76 years, the Court was not inclined to uphold the imposition of the punishment on him; instead, in exercise of its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution, it had reduced his sentence from removal of his name from the Indian Medical Register for 3 months to issuance of a censure/ warning.

The appeal was allowed, in the aforesaid terms.

Headnote

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Medical Ethics – Shift of Charges and Principles of Natural Justice – The appellant, a retired medical professor, faced a show-cause notice from the Medical Council of India (MCI) alleging that he had falsely appeared as faculty for inspection in two different medical colleges during the same academic year - The appellant successfully defended this charge by demonstrating that he was abroad during the second inspection - the Ethics Committee, acting on the directions of the Executive Committee, subsequently found the appellant guilty of a separate charge failing to disclose his previous appearance at another medical college within his declaration form - This alternative charge was never part of the original show-cause notice, and no opportunity for an explanation was given to the appellant regarding this omission - Held: The procedure adopted by the Executive Committee suffers from a serious flaw and amounts to a clear breach of the principles of natural justice - A disciplinary authority cannot punish a delinquent employee on a completely different or alternative charge that was not originally framed, without giving a fresh show-cause notice or providing a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond - Such an action constitutes a denial of a fair hearing. [Relied on Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC Online SC 2192; Paras 12]

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Modification of Penalty – Although the appellant committed a lapse through a brazen mis-declaration regarding his faculty appearances in the same academic year, the incident dated back to 2016 - Considering that a decade had passed, the appellant was now 76 years old, and the operation of the penalty had remained stayed throughout the litigation, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to do complete justice - Supreme Court directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to reduce the punishment from a three-month removal of the appellant's name from the Indian Medical Register to the issuance of a censure/warning. [Paras 13-16]

Cause Title: DR. NIGAM PRAKASH NARAIN VS. NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 467

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sunil Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rohini Prasad, AOR Ms. Ashika Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Samridhi Srivastava, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Prateek Bhatia, AOR Mr. Dhawal Mohan, Adv. Mr. Sajan Sankar Prasad, Adv.