Punjab and Haryana High Court: The petition filed by the petitioner, a Casualty Medical Officer working with the Government of Haryana, challenging the withholding of his No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) by his employer, required to obtain admission in a Post-Graduate (‘PG’) course, on account of pending disciplinary proceedings against him, the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra* and Rohit Kapoor, JJ., held that it would be wholly unjust and manifestly arbitrary to allow adverse action against a Doctor merely because he did not rise upon the arrival of an MLA and keeping such proceedings pending for years and denying the petitioner an NOC on such basis, therefore, could not be sustained.
Accordingly, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondent and directed the issuance of NOC to the petitioner.
Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner was on duty in the emergency ward of the Government Hospital. A Member of the Legislative Assembly (‘MLA’) visited the hospital and was annoyed that the petitioner did not rise upon his arrival.
A Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) was issued to the petitioner as the State proposed to impose a minor punishment under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016.
The petitioner had contended that he did not recognize the MLA and that his failure to stand was unintentional and did not amount to discourtesy. However, no final order was passed till date.
The petitioner had secured sufficient marks to obtain admission to a PG course and to apply as an in-service candidate, he required a NOC from his employer. The said certificate was withheld on the grounds that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner.
Aggrieved thereby, he approached the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that, “We are anguished and amazed at the action of the State in issuing the SCN to a Government Doctor who was on emergency duty during the COVID-19 period only because he did not rise when the MLA arrived.”
Further, the Court stated that expecting a doctor to rise when an MLA enters the emergency ward of the hospital and to propose disciplinary action against him if he does not rise is highly disturbing. Considering that petitioner’s explanation regarding not doing anything to inflict insult was completely ignored, the Court held that it was insensitive on the part of the State to proceed against the petitioner on such a charge.
The Court opined that it would be equally arbitrary to deny the right to pursue higher medical education by withholding the NOC only because SCN was pending against him. The Court noted that pursuing medical education is a tough challenge, and students must perform exceptionally well even to secure admission in MBBS Course. Further, the Court stressed that it is well-known that medical courses require deep dedication and commitment over prolonged periods and after completing MBBS and joining Government service, a doctor is expected to provide medical facilities to the masses. The Court held that the public representatives and others responsible must extend respect and basic courtesies to such dedicated professionals.
The Court stated that “With anguish, we note that frequent reports surface in newspapers of dedicated medical professionals being ill-treated by relatives of patients or public representatives without valid cause. Time has come when such undesirable incidents are checked and due recognition is extended to sincere medical professionals.”
The Court stated that it would be wholly unjust and manifestly arbitrary to allow adverse action against a Doctor merely because he did not rise upon the arrival of an MLA. Keeping such proceedings pending for years and denying the petitioner an NOC on such a basis, therefore, could not be sustained.
The Court, thus, directed the respondent to issue the NOC to the petitioner. Further, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the respondent; to be deposited with Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
[Manoj v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 34596 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 21-11-2025]
*Judgement authored by Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ankit Chahal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana, Nihar Bala, Advocate, Sunanda Rani, Advocate and H. S. Gill, Advocate