Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Pravesh Kumar Shukla vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2025
1/6
MANPREET HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
KAUR
Digitally signed by
CRMP No. 1605 of 2025
MANPREET KAUR
Date: 2025.06.09
16:14:08 +0530
Dr. Pravesh Kumar Shukla S/o Shri Gendlal Shukla Aged About 39
Years R/o Near Preet Ata Chakki, Shyam Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - A.C.B./ E.O.W., Raipur,
District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Medical Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - The Commissioner Medical Education, North Block, Sector-19,
Swasthya Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Chhattisgarh
4 - The Dean Dau Kalyan Singh Post Graduate Institute And
Research Center, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 - The Hospital Superintendent Cum Academic Incharge D.K.S.
Super Speciality Hospital, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
2/6
Order Sheet
09.06.2025 Heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for
the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Malay Jain, learned
Panel Lawyer for respondents / State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the
petitioner is Super Specialist Doctor having degree of
MBBS, MS (Surgery), Dr. NB (Doctorate of National
Board Surgical Gastroenterology) Super Specialist
course, he is renowned Doctor in the field of
Gastroenterology surgeon. The petitioner is being
victimised by the respondent state for ulterior reasons.
He further submits that the petitioner was served with
one show cause notice dated 01.07.2024, in which it
was alleged that while performing his OPD duty dated
08.06.2024, one under trial accused named Anwar
Dhebar (Co-accused in present FIR) was brought from
Jail for his medical treatment, in which he was referred
from District Hospital, Raipur with endorsement for
further treatment. The main allegation in show cause
notice was that while giving treatment at OPD being
3/6
surgeon Gastroenterology, he referred the said patient
to other Govt. Hospital/AIIMS, because G.I. endoscopy
(Colonoscopy) instrument was not available in
department. It was further stated that on the contrary,
the instrument was available on 08.06.2024 and 5
cases were examined, if the colonoscopy was not
available at department, then he could have get it done
from other department of Hospital rather than referring
to other hospital. It was further alleged that said
conduct of petitioner was an act of indiscipline and was
in violation of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1966, and petitioner was directed to give
explanation that why legal action should be not taken
against him. The petitioner herein duly replied to the
said show cause notice and explained that adult
colonoscopy is different from other endoscopy and
also stated that he advised for CT Scan but due to high
creatinine, CT scan was not performed. It was
specifically advised by the petitioner to the said patient
to get medical gastroenterology opinion and
4/6
colonoscopy tobe done from any other Govt. Hospital
or AIIMS, Raipur. However, vide order dated
08.08.2024, the services of the petitioner were
terminated from the post of Assistant Professor,
Gastroenterology Department DKS Super speciality
Hospital Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the RTI replies under Right to information act has
crystal clear stated that machine for colonoscopy in not
working from last two years in the DSK Hospital and
hence basis of alleged FIR that 5 other endoscopy was
done holds no basis. Furthermore, the petitioner has
specifically mentioned in his advice to get medical
gastroenterology opinion and the colonoscopy done
from the other Govt. Hospital or AIIMS Raipur. Hence
there is no question of giving undue benefits to any
patient (co-accused in FIR) in any manner. The
respondent has falsely roped petitioner herein to shift
blame of its failures of not having proper facilities in
Govt. Hospitals. The FIR bearing No. 18/2025 dated
5/6
26.03.2025 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
r/w Sec. 7(C), 7(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 is complete abuse of process of law by the
respondent No. 1 to arm twist and force the petitioner
herein to stop seeking his legal remedies available in
law.
In view of the above, learned State counsel
appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents,
therefore, issuance of notice to it, is dispensed with.
Four weeks’ time is granted to the learned State
counsel to file their reply-affidavit and thereafter, two
weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel for the
petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.
List the matter thereafter.
Till then, arrest of the petitioner, namely, Dr.
Pravesh Kumar Shukla in pursuance to the FIR
bearing Crime No.18/2025 dated 26.03.2025,
registered at Police Station- EOW/ACB, Raipur for
an offence under Section 467, 468, 471, 120-B of
the IPC r/w Section 7(C), 7(A) of the Prevention of
6/6
Corruption Act, 1988 shall remain stayed, subject to
the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in
the investigation.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
[ad_1]
Source link