Disciplinary action based on charges not framed in the show cause notice violates principles of natural justice.

The Appellant, a senior pediatrician, retired from Patna Medical College (PMC) and joined Shridev Suman Subharti Medical College (SSSMC) in January 2015

He resigned from SSSMC on April 7, 2015, and rejoined PMC on a contractual basis on April 10, 2015

On April 21, 2015, he signed a Declaration Form for PMC which omitted his brief stint at SSSMC within the same academic year

During a surprise MCI inspection at PMC on May 5, 2015, the Appellant was abroad attending a conference

The MCI initially issued a show-cause notice alleging he appeared for inspection at two colleges simultaneously

Although the Ethics Committee found him not guilty of the initial charge (due to his absence from India), the Executive Committee prodded a re-investigation into the non-disclosure in the Declaration Form

Without a fresh notice, the MCI ordered the removal of his name from the Indian Medical Register for three months for serious misconduct

The Single Judge of the High Court set this aside, but the Division Bench restored the penalty

The Court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of a fair hearing and reasonable opportunity to respond to specific charges

It relied on the precedent Ravi Oraon v. State of Jharkhand (2025 SCC Online SC 2192), which establishes that a disciplinary authority cannot punish an employee on a charge different from the one originally framed without issuing a fresh show-cause notice

The Court further invoked its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure "complete justice" between the parties

The Court observed that while the Appellant successfully defended the original charge of simultaneous physical appearance at two inspections, the MCI shifted the goalposts to a "mis-declaration" charge without informing him or seeking his explanation

This constituted a serious procedural flaw and a breach of natural justice

However, the Court also noted that the Appellant did indeed fail to disclose his prior service at SSSMC in the PMC Declaration Form—a "brazen mis-declaration" which technically constitutes misconduct

Balancing these factors, the Court found the Division Bench's total restoration of the penalty to be overly harsh. The Court considered the decade-long litigation, the Appellant’s age (76 years), and the procedural lapses of the MCI in deciding that the punishment required modification

Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court directed the National Medical Commission (NMC) to reduce the punishment from a three-month removal from the Medical Register to a formal "censure/warning". The impugned judgment of the Division Bench was set aside to that extent, and any prior notifications regarding the suspension were effectively modified