Showing posts with label Professional Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Professional Ethics. Show all posts

Private Practice and Professionalism in our country

We have so many professionals’ degrees in our country being awarded by Institutes or Universities. Some of the well known professions in our country are Engineers, Technocrats, Doctors including Dentists and Veterinarians, Lawyers, Professors, Teachers etc. are few to name, but I am sure, the list will be long, if a realty check is done. All above class of professionals gets employed in private as well as government sector. In the Govt sectors, these professional are allowed to have different norms of practicing their profession in public life. A norm generally known as private practice is legally allowed for one class of professionals and is legally disallowed for other class of professionals. Are we not professing discrimination between two class of professionals in India. We all know that Doctors and lawyers, when employed in Govt sector, are doing private practice while when the same, if done by a Engineer or Technocrat, he is labeled as Corrupt by our society. Why we have this different yard stick for different professionals in our country. A matter of proud for one professional becomes a corrupt way of living for other is not understood.

A Doctor when employed in a Govt hospital practices his profession from home also. Any one can see a board out side his residence proudly displayed with consultation hours. He may be getting a Non Practicing Allowance (NPA) also from his employers. But no one really bothers to see that whether that is legally allowed or not. His superiors supposed to enforce that simply turns Nelson eye because they themselves also may be doing the same in public life.

As per VI pay commission, Doctors get NPA at the existing rate of 25% of aggregate of Band pay and Grade pay subject to the condition that Basic pay + NPA does not exceed Rs 85000/-. The NPA is restricted to those medical posts for which a medical qualification recognized under the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 or under the Dentists Act, 1948 has been prescribed as an essential qualification. The order is same for Veterinary posts also. State Govt, Public sector Bodies and Railways are also giving NPA to their Doctors on more or less similar lines.

Govt. Advocates in our country profess private practice as well as counseling in our country. I do not know whether Law officers are getting any NPA or not, but they may be taking cases in court with certain conditions like with prior government permission or may not be taking cases where Govt or a Govt body has a preponderating interest. They also display boards outside their houses with counseling hours, so that public can approach them accordingly. Thus when they offer consultancy service to their private clients (other than Govt) in their profession with their wisdom, it is considered fair and not labeled as corrupt practice in our country.

The teachers and professors are known to give tuitions at home. No body ever thinks whether the activity is legal or not. They openly do this activity in their homes. More enterprising ones open Tution centers near to their homes for attracting maximum students. Some schools try to stop this activity but with out much success. The parents feel more secure if their ward starts going for tuitions. University professors also carry out this activity with out any resistance from any quarter. They all consider it fair on their part to display their wisdom through coaching or tuitions with out ever thinking that such an activity is covered in their service rules or not. All earn this as tax free income and no one talks in terms of increasing corruption in our society.
Now take the case of Engineers and Technocrats in our country. If they are employed in Govt /PSU sector. They are not allowed to do private practice of their profession, they have learnt through years of hard work with deep hole in their pocket. It is common knowledge that to get a degree in Engineering or Technology, a student has to go through some famous coaching institute for preparations, sit in multiple entrance tests, and when selected, with load of different types of fees make the course a very costly affair to afford. So when a Engineer or Technocrat employed in Govt sector tries to display his wisdom of his degree so obtained with so much labour, money and experience, he is not simply allowed and his employers teach him that such a practice is termed as illegal and corrupt. After all, if a engineer or technocrat also starts making project reports or offer consultancy services from their homes for their private clients, un connected with their official work, why this is being labeled as undesirable way of earning by their employers. They can also be given permission with certain conditions as is being done in the case of Law officers by Govt.

We shall not confuse `Private Practice` with Acceptance of Fee and Honorariums in service rules for Govt employees. The first one is employee driven activity while second one is mostly employer driven activity. Acceptance of Honorarium is well known while acceptance of Fee is unheard for Govt officials.

An Honorarium is a recurring or non recurring payment granted to a government servant as remuneration for special work of an occasional or intermittent character, like performing work in election duties, translation work from regional languages to English /hindi or vice versa, giving lecture to other organizations or working as Invigilators in competitions, exams etc. The honorarium given varies from Rs 500/- per day to Rs 2000/- per day depending upon the work, outside organization as well as employees designation or pay in service. But such works given to all and are not the domain of engineer or technocrat.

A Fee means a recurring or non-recurring payment to a government service from a source other than consolidated fund of India or a state or a union territory, whether made directly or indirectly through the intermediary of Government. The acceptance of fee is allowed under some conditions, but I have not heard a case where a CEO of a govt body had allowed his employee to accept fee from a source other then given above.
Govt of India (DOPT circular of Oct 2008) also allows a Govt servant to act as `Arbitrator` in disputes between Govt of India and private parties or between private parties. The honorarium paid in such cases are Rs 500/- per month to Rs 10000/- per case. But such works are normally given to legal fraternity rather than technical luminaries.

Articles normally appear in various newspapers in India on the cause of Doctors saying private practice is no crime. A glimpse of news published in April 2011 in TOI is follows : `The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government doctors defying the ban on private practice and charging consultation fee from patients in a clinic during spare time could neither be accused of indulging in trade nor be booked under the anti-corruption law`. No such news items ever appeared for Law officers or Professors or Teachers. Now the moot point is why one norm (private practice) is a boon for some select class of professionals become bane for others class of professional like Engineers or Technocrats. May be free India is to see some more free years to have such liberal laws in our country.
Read more

Conflict of interest - Ram Jethmalani and Kamini Jaiswal spat

"If two senior advocates fight like this in the Supreme Court, I wonder what would be the plight in the lower courts," remarked a three-judge bench headed by Justice D.K. Jain, commenting on the spat between Senior Advocates Kamini Jaiswal and Ram Jethmalani.
Justices DK Jain, Justice Sathasivam and Aftab Alam in Court Hall No. 5 were hearing 8 petitions which were clubbed together, regarding the Gujarat riots. The counsel list included Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Prashant Bhushan being assisted by more than 50 junior lawyers in this matter including Litigation Partners of various firms.
The exchange started when Senior Advocate Kamini Jaiswal objected to Jethmalani taking up the brief on behalf of former Gujarat legislator Kalu Bhai Maliwal to challenge an April 2009 order. The Supreme Court had, on April 27 last year, ordered a probe to be conducted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the 2002 Gujarat riots incidents. The Supreme Court had also directed the probe team to investigate the roles of legislator Maliwal and other politicians including Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
IANS reported verbatim the exchange between the senior counsels. “The fact that Jethmalani had earlier sought the transfer of the trial of all riot cases outside the state indicated that he was convinced with the culpability of state functionaries in fomenting the communal trouble”, she said, maintaining that advocates must observe some consistency in taking up the briefs.
Responding, the Bench commented that they “cannot decide what briefs the lawyers should take”. "Let a lawyer's conscience decide what brief he should take up." When Jaiswal responded by saying, "It's not parliament that a lawyer should change sides," an infuriated Jethmalani said, "You are too small for saying that." Jaiswal contended that in a courtroom, lawyers stood on equal footing.
Speaking to Bar & Bench Advocate Ramesh Pukhrambam, who was present in the Court asks, “By the courts records, one can see that Mr. Jethmalani had represented the victims earlier. Now, he is representing the accused in this matter. Isnt this conflict of interest?”
Ram Jethmalani had earlier represented Centre for Peace and Justice, an NGO that had filed an application to hand over the investigation of the Gujarat riots in a separate matter although connected with the larger issue of Gujarat riots.
Jethmalani had spoken to the media in 2009 and had offered his assistance to the Supreme Court on the Gujarat riots cases when the court had invited senior members of the Bar. "Since it would have been embarrassing to come and offer my assistance, I was looking for an opportunity” he said.
This throws a larger question of the definition of conflict of interest? Whether these litigations were connected to each other for conflict to arise? The Bar Council Rules on Professional Standards only says, “An advocate who has, at any time, advised in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other matter or has drawn pleadings, or acted for a party, shall not act, appear or plead for the opposite party”. Going by this limited definition, one can argue that no conflict exists, on technical grounds, if the opposite party is not the same side.

source:http://www.barandbench.com/brief/2/677/conflict-of-interest-ram-jethmalani-and-kamini-jaiswal-spat
Read more