A JIPMER head of department has been found guilty of professional misconduct after an internal inquiry revealed misuse of authority against a female junior doctor.
Key Points
- JIPMER's Internal Complaints Committee found a HoD guilty of misusing his authority against a junior doctor.
- The HoD disclosed the junior doctor's thesis topic and departmental matters to her estranged husband without consent.
- The committee deemed the HoD's conduct as an abuse of authority and a violation of professional boundaries.
- Disciplinary proceedings have been recommended against the HoD following the inquiry report.
- The committee noted inconsistencies in the HoD's statements during the investigation.
The Internal Complaints Committee at the prestigious Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, has found a head of departments guilty of misusing his position of authority against a female junior doctor, according to its inquiry report.
"Although the specific allegation of sexual harassment in the form of sexually coloured remarks could not be established on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the overall conduct of the respondent (HoD) clearly reflects professional misconduct warranting appropriate administrative and disciplinary action," the committee said in its final report, recommending disciplinary proceedings against him.
Key Findings of the JIPMER Investigation
The eight-member committee was set up after a first-year junior resident from the newly-launched department alleged sexual harassment by her HoD. When contacted, the HoD did not respond to the committee's recommendations against him.
Out of eight specific allegations examined by the committee, two were found to be true, while the other two were partially proved.
The allegations found to be true were that the HoD voluntarily discussed the junior doctor's thesis topic, leave, and departmental matters with her estranged husband, who also works at JIPMER.
"Such disclosure, without the complainant's consent, constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into her academic autonomy and personal domain," the committee said.
Details of the Allegations and Committee's Observations
The committee added that the allegations regarding the HoD's inappropriate behaviour causing her mental stress and his inappropriate comments about her personal life and marital status were partially proved.
The junior doctor alleged that the HoD purchased pomegranate juice for her and, after she consumed the drink, said that he bought it because she menstruates every month and remarked that he treated her in a similar manner that he treated his wife.
"He also allegedly stated that he drinks pineapple juice regularly to boost his sexual activity," the committee, while recording the junior doctor's allegation, said. The committee, however, said that the available evidence on this specific allegation remained evenly balanced and did not sufficiently tilt in favour of either side.
Committee's Final Recommendations
In its overall findings, the committee stated "...although the HoD has pleaded that his actions were unintentional and were motivated by concern towards the complainant, the consequences of his conduct cannot be overlooked."
"The respondent's (HoD) conduct resulted in an abuse of position of authority, violation of professional boundaries, inappropriate interference in the complainant's personal and academic autonomy, and conduct unbecoming of a faculty member occupying a supervisory role," the committee said.
The committee also observed that the HoD provided multiple versions of events, which were inconsistent and contradictory at various stages of the inquiry, whereas the junior doctor remained largely consistent in her statements.
The committee has recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the HoD under applicable service rules, continuation of administrative safeguards ensuring no supervisory or evaluative control over the complainant and measures to ensure protection against retaliation.
© 2026