Palghar : Civil Surgeon is registering 41 Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes without Fire NOC. As per section 3 of Maharahtra Fire Act it is mandatory for all comercial units. The structure Occupation ceritifcate record is also not available at civil surgeon office Palghar.
The registration authority is not issuing 3 years license without mandatory compliance. It is offence under section 7 and 13 of prevention of corruption act. The lack of compliance and issuing registration is misconduct . As per Hon'ble Bombay High Court the Hospitals and nursing homes the license should not be issued without Fire NOC .
Dr Sanjay S Bodade is issuing such licenses without following rule of law. Recently the Relief Hospital got Licenses in 2021 at Palghar and the building is under construction and have no OC.
"9. 'Misconduct' has not been defined in the Act. The word 'misconduct' is antithesis of the word 'conduct'. Thus, ordinarily the expression 'misconduct' means wrong or improper conduct, unlawful behavior, misfeasance, wrong conduct, misdemeanour etc. There being different meaning of the expression 'misconduct', we, therefore, have to construe the expression 'misconduct' with reference to the subject and the context wherein the said expression occurs. Regard being had to the aims and objects of the statute......".
14. `Misconduct', inter alia, envisages breach of discipline, although it would not be possible to lay down exhaustively as to what would constitute conduct and indiscipline, which, however, is wide enough to include wrongful omission or commission whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally. It means, "improper behaviour; intentional wrong doing on deliberate violation of a rule of standard or behaviour":
"Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, where no discretion is left except what necessity may demand; it is a violation of definite law, a forbidden act. It differs from carelessness. Misconduct even if it is an offence underis equally a misconduct."
19. Samaraditya Pal in his Book "Law relating to Public Service", noticed a contrary decision of a learned single Judge, of the Bombay High Court in ABDULLA LATIFSHAH v. BOMBAY PORT TRUST, (1992) 1 LLJ 226 and at page 717 of the treatise, it was observed:
In view of Sinha, J, of the Calcutta High Court discloses a pragmatic approach based on robust commonsense' and is to be preferred to the Bombay view. The Calcutta view also finds support in principle from a subsequent three Judge Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court (B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, where the possession of disproportionate assets, not satisfactorily accounted for, was held TO AMOUNT TO A MISCONDUCT AMENABLE TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT AN ENUMERATED MISCONDUCT UNDER THE conduct Rules. And more recently, relying upon the phrase "for good and sufficient reason" which often occurs in the rules, the Supreme Court has held in SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT v A.C.J. BRITTO, , that non-specified conduct may also amount to misconduct i.e., the misconduct need not be enumerated in the rules.
Intemperate language used hi reply to a charge-sheet may also amount to misconduct (SYED KHADER MOHIUDDIN v THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU PSC, (1997) II LLJ (Mad.) (DB) Misconduct may be committed outside the place of work e.g where a bank employee having consumed liquor was in a state of undress and created an ugly scene in public. (THIRUMANGALAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, MADURAI, 1992 (6) SLR 145 (Mad.)). But mere passive participation in an illegal strike will amount to misconduct. (CHANGUNABAI CHANOO PALKAR v KHATAU MAKANJI MILLS LIMITED, (1992) II LLJ 640 (Guj.) (DB)).
20. In STATE BANK OF INDIA v T.J. PAUL, , the Apex Court held that an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank would include an act, which is likely to cause loss e.g. improper and unauthorized sanction of loan, although no loss has actually been suffered.
21. In GOVERNMENT OF A.P. v P. POSETTY, , it has been held that allegations of illegal detention of certain persons in police custody, their torture etc. by police officer for corrupt motives would amount to misconduct.
22. Wrongful claim of allowance, wilful absence from duty and sexual harassment in working place have been held to be misconduct. (See DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. ANIL GHOSH, , UNION OF INDIA v. B. DEV, APPELLATE EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL v. A.K.CHOPRA, ).
23. We may also notice that in N.G. DASTANE v. SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE, , THOMAS, J, speaking for a three Judge Bench noticed the dictionary meaning of 'misconduct' and 'professional misconduct' and held:
Advocate abusing the process of Court is guilty of misconduct. When witnesses are present in Court for examination the advocate concerned has a duty to see that their examination is conducted. We remind that witnesses who come to the Court, on being called by the Court, do so as they have no other option, and such witnesses are also responsible citizens who have other work to attend for eking out livelihood. They cannot be treated as less respectable to be told to come again and again just to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. If the advocate has any unavoidable inconvenience it is his duty to make other arrangements for examining the witnesses who is present in Court. Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who are present in Court even without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of advocate's duty to the Court, as that would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned. Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the Court procedures. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct.