The Supreme Court quashed the appointment of a committee to consider removing consultant surgeon Pawan Rajpal from office and also quashed the decision to suspend him without pay. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 9 June 2005, varied the High Court order, which had quashed the committee appointment but upheld the suspension.
The dispute arose from multiple personal and professional complaints exchanged between Mr Rajpal and another consultant surgeon at the same hospital between January and May 2003. The Supreme Court said it was not deciding the merits of those complaints or taking over the health board’s management of the dispute.
On 18 August 2003, North Eastern Health Board chief executive Paul Robinson suspended Mr Rajpal under section 22 of the Health Act 1970 and asked the Minister for Health and Children to establish a committee under section 24. The committee was appointed on 24 September to consider a proposal to remove Mr Rajpal from office.
The Court found that the statutory committee could be appointed only when removal of a permanent officer was proposed. Mr Robinson had not made or communicated such a proposal. He said he had referred the matter for investigation and had not decided to propose Mr Rajpal’s removal. The Court also noted that Mr Rajpal had not received the written notice of an intention to remove him, the reasons for removal, or the opportunity to make representations required by the 1971 regulations.
The Court rejected the health board’s request to leave the committee appointment in place despite those defects. It said doing so would deprive Mr Rajpal of statutory protections, and that his timely objection to the committee’s jurisdiction had not amounted to acquiescence.
The Supreme Court also overturned the High Court’s decision on suspension. It held that the suspension was intended to last only while alleged misconduct or unfitness was being investigated. Because the statutory committee was invalidly constituted and no specific allegation had been set out by the chief executive as required by the regulations, there was no qualifying inquiry to support suspension under section 22.
The Court also found that Mr Robinson had wrongly refused to consider a dossier Mr Rajpal brought to a meeting on 23 July 2003. The dossier responded to 90 complaints. Given the serious effects of suspension without pay, the chief executive had to consider the consultant’s representations when deciding whether suspension was necessary. The Court noted that the contract provided for paid administrative leave in certain circumstances, but did not find that those circumstances applied.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order quashing the committee appointment and granted certiorari quashing the 18 August decisions and orders of the first and second-named respondents, including the suspension.