Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Pravesh Kumar Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2025
1/6
MANPREET HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KAUR
Digitally signed by
CRMP No. 1605 of 2025
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2025.06.09
16:14:08 +0530
Dr. Pravesh Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Gendlal Shukla Aged About 39
Years R/o Near Preet Ata Chakki, Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - A.C.B./ E.O.W., Raipur,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Commissioner Medical Education, North Block, Sector-19,
Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Chhattisgarh
4 - The Dean Dau Kalyan Singh Post Graduate Institute And
Research Center, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - The Hospital Superintendent Cum Academic Incharge D.K.S.
Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
2/6
Order Sheet 09.06.2025 Heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents / State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is Super Specialist Doctor having degree of MBBS, MS (Surgery), Dr. NB (Doctorate of National Board Surgical Gastroenterology) Super Specialist course, he is renowned Doctor in the field of Gastroenterology surgeon. The petitioner is being victimised by the respondent state for ulterior reasons. He further submits that the petitioner was served with one show cause notice dated 01.07.2024, in which it was alleged that while performing his OPD duty dated 08.06.2024, one under trial accused named Anwar Dhebar (Co-accused in present FIR) was brought from Jail for his medical treatment, in which he was referred from District Hospital, Raipur with endorsement for further treatment. The main allegation in show cause notice was that while giving treatment at OPD being 3/6 surgeon Gastroenterology, he referred the said patient to other Govt. Hospital/AIIMS, because G.I. endoscopy (Colonoscopy) instrument was not available in department. It was further stated that on the contrary, the instrument was available on 08.06.2024 and 5 cases were examined, if the colonoscopy was not available at department, then he could have get it done from other department of Hospital rather than referring to other hospital. It was further alleged that said conduct of petitioner was an act of indiscipline and was in violation of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and petitioner was directed to give explanation that why legal action should be not taken against him. The petitioner herein duly replied to the said show cause notice and explained that adult colonoscopy is different from other endoscopy and also stated that he advised for CT Scan but due to high creatinine, CT scan was not performed. It was specifically advised by the petitioner to the said patient to get medical gastroenterology opinion and 4/6 colonoscopy tobe done from any other Govt. Hospital or AIIMS, Raipur. However, vide order dated 08.08.2024, the services of the petitioner were terminated from the post of Assistant Professor, Gastroenterology Department DKS Super speciality Hospital Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the RTI replies under Right to information act has crystal clear stated that machine for colonoscopy in not working from last two years in the DSK Hospital and hence basis of alleged FIR that 5 other endoscopy was done holds no basis. Furthermore, the petitioner has specifically mentioned in his advice to get medical gastroenterology opinion and the colonoscopy done from the other Govt. Hospital or AIIMS Raipur. Hence there is no question of giving undue benefits to any patient (co-accused in FIR) in any manner. The respondent has falsely roped petitioner herein to shift blame of its failures of not having proper facilities in Govt. Hospitals. The FIR bearing No. 18/2025 dated 5/6 26.03.2025 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC r/w Sec. 7(C), 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is complete abuse of process of law by the respondent No. 1 to arm twist and force the petitioner herein to stop seeking his legal remedies available in law.
In view of the above, learned State counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents, therefore, issuance of notice to it, is dispensed with.
Four weeks' time is granted to the learned State counsel to file their reply-affidavit and thereafter, two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
List the matter thereafter.
Till then, arrest of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Pravesh Kumar Shukla in pursuance to the FIR bearing Crime No.18/2025 dated 26.03.2025, registered at Police Station- EOW/ACB, Raipur for an offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC r/w Section 7(C), 7(A) of the Prevention of 6/6 Corruption Act, 1988 shall remain stayed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet