Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Punishment of Government Doctor for Medical Negligence and Record Tampering; Refuses to Interfere With Concurrent Disciplinary Findings
Case Name: Dr. Gurdeep Singh (since deceased) through LRs v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: LPA-1995-2025 & LPA-1996-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge upholding disciplinary punishment imposed on a Senior Medical Officer for medical negligence and unauthorised removal and tampering of official medical records. The Court held that once misconduct is proved in a departmental inquiry on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, judicial interference is impermissible unless perversity or violation of natural justice is demonstrated. The Court further held that unauthorised custody and alteration of official patient records, by itself, constitutes grave misconduct justifying major penalty.
Summary: The appeals were filed by the legal representatives of a deceased government doctor challenging dismissal of writ petitions that had upheld disciplinary orders imposing permanent reduction in pay, denial of enhanced subsistence allowance during suspension, and rejection of proficiency step-up. The disciplinary action stemmed from allegations that during a surgical procedure, a surgical instrument was left inside a patient’s abdomen and that the doctor later removed and tampered with the original medical record of the patient without authority.
The appellant contended that the inquiry was vitiated due to non-examination of key witnesses, including the patient and the private doctor who later removed the instrument, and alleged fabrication of medical evidence. It was also argued that the punishment was harsh and disproportionate.
The Division Bench examined the record and noted that statements of the patient and the private doctor were part of the inquiry material and had been put to the delinquent officer. It was further noted that the appellant had admitted his absence during the inquiry proceedings and failed to challenge the inquiry report itself. The Court reiterated that departmental proceedings are governed by the standard of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in judicial review.
Independently of the allegation of surgical negligence, the Court placed decisive emphasis on the proved charge of unauthorised removal and tampering of official medical records. It held that such conduct seriously undermines institutional integrity and public trust in government hospitals, and by itself warranted the punishment imposed. The Court also upheld denial of proficiency step-up, holding that an employee facing and found guilty in disciplinary proceedings cannot claim service benefits as a matter of right.
Decision: Both Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed. The Division Bench upheld the disciplinary punishment, denial of enhanced subsistence allowance, and rejection of proficiency step-up, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.