Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Mr. Singhdev, appearing for the MCI, submitted that the duty discharged by the MCI in cases such as this is purely quasi-judicial in nature. He submits that the justification, for the concluding findings of the MCI against the petitioner, is to be found in the impugned Order itself. As is noted in the impugned Order, the petitioner was unable to explain why, in his noting on the official record of KMC, he was shown to have carried out USG on Mamta twice, contrary to his assertion that he had carried out the USG only once, and had not conducted USG after the D&C was over. The finding being purely one of fact, arrived at on the basis of the material on record, Mr. Singhdev's submission is that no occasion arises for a writ court to interfere therewith.

(1978) 1 SCC 405

13. That is, however, precisely what the impugned Order of the MCI does. Even on that sole ground, the Order, insofar as it punishes the petitioner, deserves to be set aside.

14. That apart, it is not possible to glean, even from an incisive reading of the impugned Order, as to what falsification of record is precisely being alleged against the petitioner. Mr. Singhdev has referred to the para, from the order dated 4 February 2008 of the DMC, reproduced in para 6.17 supra. What is stated in the said paragraph is that the petitioner was unable to reconcile his assertion that he had not conducted USG examination of Mamta twice with his noting of 14 May 2007 in the KMC records. To my mind, the question of whether the petitioner conducted USG of Mamta once, or twice, really does not arise, as the entire D&C procedure, carried out by Dr. Archana Kothari, was admittedly under the ultrasonographic guidance provided by the petitioner. Frankly, I fail to understand how, in such procedure, it can precisely be stated that the petitioner conducted USG of Mamta a finite number of times. Mamta was under