Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 18 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – F Biravinth Solomon, a qualified doctor pursuing M.Ch. in Cardiac Thoracic Surgery at Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore (Respondent).
  • Background: While enrolled as a Senior Resident, Solomon received a charge memo and was terminated by CMC. He challenged the termination, arguing no master‑servant relationship existed. The matter progressed through:
  • Writ petition in Madras High Court (dismissed).
  • Special Leave Petition to Supreme Court (disposed with liberty to seek appropriate remedy).
  • Writ appeal before High Court Division Bench; termination order passed during pendency.
  • Single Judge of the High Court allowed Solomon’s writ petition on 10‑10‑2023, holding that no master‑servant relationship existed and that termination under Staff Service Regulations was invalid, citing National Medical Commission (NMC) reply‑affidavit that PGMER, 2000 does not permit termination without regulator approval.
  • Division Bench of the High Court (order dated 30‑04‑2025) set aside the Single Judge’s order but retained the finding of no master‑servant relationship.
  • Contentions:
  • Appellant: Termination void due to absence of employment relationship; disciplinary action cannot be sustained.
  • Respondent (CMC): Asserted existence of master‑servant relationship via appointment letter; argued disciplinary action was justified.
  • NMC Counter‑Affidavit: Confirmed trainees are not employees; remuneration governed by PGMER, 2000; no explicit provision for suspension/termination of postgraduate trainees. Noted that Professional Conduct Regulations 2023 were placed in abeyance on 23‑08‑2023, reinstating Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (IMC Regulations 2002). Extracted Regulation 8 (and sub‑clauses 8.2‑8.6) empowering State Medical Councils to conduct disciplinary proceedings, prescribe punishments, and set timelines (decision within 6 months, possible suspension during pendency).

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court Division Bench order and restored the Single Judge’s order, confirming that no master‑servant relationship exists between CMC and the appellant.
  • The Court directed CMC to transmit all records of the disciplinary proceedings to the appropriate State Medical Council within two weeks.
  • The State Medical Council must issue notices to both parties within three weeks of receipt, allow responses, and conduct an enquiry as per IMC Regulations 2002, aiming to decide within three months of receiving responses.
  • The appellant is to remain suspended from the M.Ch. course for a period of four months from the date of this order, or until the State Medical Council concludes its enquiry, whichever is earlier.
  • The appeal is allowed on these terms; any pending applications are to be disposed of.

Topics: Disciplinary Proceedings, Medical Education Regulation