- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.53672 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: DR. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O KONDAPPA K.A, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O PRAKASH CLINIC, CLUB ROAD, PARIMALA COMPLEX, NEAR SP CIRCLE, BELLARY-583103 ALSO RESIDING AT: NO.7, YASHASVI, NEAR WELCOME GATE, SERIGUPPA ROAD, BELLARY-583 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL #16/6, 2ND FLOOR, MILLER TANK BED ROAD, VASANTHANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE PRESIDENT KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL, #16/6, 2ND FLOOR, MILLER TANK BED ROAD, VASANTHANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 052. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 3. MR CH SHANKARAIAH AGE MAJOR ASST VICE PRESIDENT, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, # 31, GROUND FLOOR, TBR TOWERS, IST CROSS, MISSION ROAD, NEXT TO BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE-560 027. 4. THE DIRECTOR, VIJAYANAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, CANTONMENT, BELLARY-583 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RATHNA SHIVAYOGIMATH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. O. MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. ARUNODAYA HIREMATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. J.M. ANIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE R-1 & 2 VIDE ANNEX-A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 & 2 VIDE ANNEX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Petitioner was subjected to enquiry by the respondent No.1-Karnataka Medical Council ('KMC' for short) upon a complaint filed by respondent No.3, alleging petitioner being in the habit of issuing disability certificates by exaggerating the injuries and by making false deposition before various Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunals, Bellary. 2. After the enquiry, respondent No.1-KMC by Order impugned at Annexure-A dated 17.09.2016 has unanimously decided to remove the petitioner's name from the Medical Registry for the period of two years from the date of issuance of the order. 3. Though the said order has lost its efficacy by a efflux of time, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the order is stigmatic and the petitioner has to live with it. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner has a substantive cause of action. In furtherance, he takes this Court through the records and reads the entire impugned order at Annexure-A to raise the following contentions namely; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 (i). That the respondent No.1-KMC has not followed the principles of natural justice. (ii). No specific charges were framed against him. (iii). The respondent No.3-Complainant who made serious allegations against the petitioner has not proved or justified the said allegations. (iv). The respondent No.1-KMC has merely relied upon certain observations made in the orders passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunals/Courts to be the basis for passing of the impugned order, even if such orders were passed and attained finality, they do not form the basis of the order to be passed by the respondent No.1-KMC. 4. He further submits that the enquiry contemplated is to be conducted in terms of Section 15 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961. The principles applicable for any other enquiry has to be followed which is absent in the instant case. That unless and until the complainant/respondent No.3 establishes the case against the petitioner there is no burden on the petitioner to have discharged. Therefore, he submits that the order impugned is unsustainable. 5. Heard and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 6. The Enquiry report and the order forming part of Annexure-A indicates that two enquiries have been initiated against the petitioner namely; ENQ/18/2013 and KMC/35Exp/Doct/2015. 7. Perusal of the said documents indicate that, in furtherance to the complaint, respondent No.3-Complainant had submitted his affidavit on 24.10.2013 and tendered himself for cross-examination on 19.12.2013 and 20.09.2014. Petitioner also submitted his affidavit on 14.06.2014 and appeared for cross-examination on 20.12.2014 and also for further cross-examination on 04.07.2015 and 16.01.2016. However, subsequently he failed to submit his written arguments or to appear before the respondent No.1-KMC, despite notices given to him on 20.02.2016, 12.03.2016, 09.04.2016, 04.06.2016, 18.06.2016, 02.07.2016 and 16.07.2016. 8. It is under these circumstances, respondent No.1-KMC has proceeded to pass the impugned order based on the documents which are made available. Respondent No.1-KMC has also found that the petitioner herein has failed to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 substantiate about the certificates issued by him. It has further taken note of the order passed in MVC Nos.838/2014 to 842/2014 by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, wherein, in one of its order dated 16.10.2015 following is observed: '' Doctor-PWs6 to 10 who is not an Orthopedic surgeon, who is in the habit of giving false disability certificate only to get the compensation of the petitioner and wrongful loss caused to the insurance company. Hence at this stage it is proper to refer the matter to Medical Board of Bellary to take action against Dr. Lakshminarayana. K as per law.'' 9. Similar is the order passed in MVC Nos.547/2014, 548/2014 and 549/2014, where while dismissing the said petitions, it is observed as under: ''Medical Board, Bellary is directed to take action against Dr. Lakshminarayana. K, for issuing false disability certificates.'' 10. On the aforesaid two observations, the respondent No.1-KMC has observed that the petitioner has not challenged the said order, which has attained finality. 11. Referring to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that this is where the respondent No.1-KMC committed grave error in accepting the complaint, as it is, merely based on certain observations made by the Tribunal. That the said observation is erroneous, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 according to him petitioner being a mere witness could not have challenged the said orders and the same could not be the basis for them to have come to the conclusion of petitioner having committed violation of Code of Medical Ethics. He submits that in the absence of any independent material evidence, the respondent No.1-KMC could not have come to the conclusion of removing his name from the Medical Registry. 12. Perusal of the further records would indicate that the respondent No.3-Complainant in support of his complaint has filed a detailed affidavit in lieu of evidence as per Annexure-D and has also furnished documents, the said witness has been cross-examined by petitioner-Dr.Lakshminarayana, who himself has subsequently led evidence and subjected for cross- examination. 13. Law with regard to scope of judicial review of enquiry proceedings by Disciplinary Authority is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank Of India Vs.Ramadhar Sao reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1752 at paragraph No.13 has held as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 13. The legal position with regard to interference in inquiries or the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers of judicial review is well-settled. This court in SBI's case (supra) observed as under: “22. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this Court…” (emphasis supplied) 13.1. Law on the issue, that disciplinary authority is not required to record reason in detail if report of inquiry officer, is accepted. Reference can be made to judgment of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi's case (supra). Relevant para thereof is extracted below: 11. … it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10-12-2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21-12-2005 in Ref. No. LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders impugned are devoid of reasons.” (emphasis supplied) 14. What is required to be seen in the matter of enquiry while under judicial review is whether or not the principles of natural justice have been complied with. It is not the outcome of the enquiry which is subject matter of judicial review. It is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 the manner in which it is conducted. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was given complete and full opportunity and was furnished with all the records and he has fully participated in the enquiry by cross-examining the respondent No.3-Complainant/witness and he himself leading evidence and attending himself for cross examination. The enquiry apparently conducted is traceable to Section 15 of Karnataka Medical Registration Act which reads as under: "15. Removal of Medical Practitioner's name from register for misconduct - (1) If a medical practitioner has been, after due inquiry by the Medical Council, found guilty of any misconduct, the Medical Council may- (a) issue a letter of warning addressed to such medical practitioner, or (b) direct the name of such medical practitioner- (i) to be removed from the register for such period as may be specified in the direction, or (ii) to be removed from the register without specifying the period of such removal. Explanation. For the purposes of this section "misconduct" shall mean- (a) the conviction of the medical practitioner by a criminal court for an offence which involves moral turpitude and which is cognizable as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Central Act V of 1898), or any other law for the time being in force; (b) any conduct which, in the opinion of the Medical Council is infamous in relation to the medical profession. (2) The Medical Council may, at any subsequent date, if it thinks fit, and shall on a decision to that effect of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8658 WP No.53672 of 2016 Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, direct that any name so removed shall be re-entered". 15. No other provision is brought to the notice of this Court, providing for the manner and method of conducting the enquiry. As noted above, all that the said Regulation contemplate is due enquiry by the respondent No.1-KMC. Records as noted above indicate that the petitioner has fully and completely participated in the enquiry proceedings. He has for reasons best known despite repeated notices has not appeared after cross-examination. No errors or irregularities can be found in the process adopted by the respondent No.1- KMC. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.09.2016(Annexure-A). Petition accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14