𝗔 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗼𝗻 "𝗣𝗿𝗲-𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁"

𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱:

Pre-employment medical examinations are a vital safeguard in technically demanding industrial environments, ensuring that only medically fit candidates are inducted. These examinations are governed by detailed procedures designed to uphold transparency, accuracy, and professional integrity. Any deviation from these standards not only compromises the legitimacy of the recruitment process but also exposes the system to allegations of malpractice and weakens public trust.

This case study concerns a complaint lodged by a selected candidate for the post of Operator-cum-Technician (OCT) in an integrated steel plant. The candidate alleged that he was declared “temporarily unfit” during the pre-employment medical examination because he refused to pay a bribe of Rs 1 lakh, demanded by the examining doctors. A vigilance inquiry into the Pre-employment Medical Examination Report, related documents, and statements of the medical personnel involved revealed several procedural lapses, inconsistencies, and instances of suppression of facts.

𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀:

The candidate, having received the Offer of Appointment for the post of Operator-cum-Technician (OCT), reported to the plant’s Main Hospital on the scheduled date for the mandatory pre-employment medical examination.

After undergoing the required tests, he was declared temporarily unfit due to alleged hypertension, renal issues, and cardiac abnormalities. As per the Medical & Health Manual, he was required to undergo treatment and appear for re-examination with a fitness certificate within six months.

The Manual prescribes a structured process and standardized formats for the medical examination:

Annexure-I: Personal Data Sheet and Declaration by the Candidate

Annexure-II: Medical Examination Report (Details of Tests Conducted)

Annexure-III: Medical Certificate indicating deficiencies

Annexure-IV: Certificate declaring the candidate Fit or Unfit

In line with these provisions, a Medical Board was constituted under the chairmanship of the Director I/C (Medical & Health Services).

Examination of Annexures II, III, and IV revealed several discrepancies:

Colour Vision: The candidate underwent all eye-related tests; however, against Colour Vision, the entry read “NO T TURNED UP.” The Ophthalmologist stated during interrogation that he had detected colour blindness using the Ishihara Chart but wrote “NOT TURNED UP” to give the candidate another chance. Scrutiny of the document revealed that the original remark “NO” had been altered to “NO T TURNED UP,” with a visible gap between “NO” and “T,” indicating a deliberate afterthought and suppression of facts.

Blood Pressure: The original reading of 120/80 (normal) was overwritten as 160/90. The examining doctor confirmed that he had recorded the normal reading and that the alteration was made without his knowledge.

Heart Sound: Initially recorded as NAD (No Abnormality Detected), this was later changed to “+ Heart.” The examining doctor stated that he had found no murmurs and that the alteration was made without his consent.

Fitness Remark: The examining physician had initially recorded “found medically fit,” which he later struck off and initialed. He stated that he was instructed by seniors to leave the column blank. The candidate was subsequently declared “Temporarily Unfit” by a senior doctor.

The senior doctor who declared the candidate unfit admitted to altering the Blood Pressure and Heart Sound findings, claiming they reflected his own observations. He could not provide a valid explanation for modifying another doctor’s recorded entries without authorization or proper attestation.

The Director I/C (M&HS), a signatory to the Reports and Certificates, dismissed the discrepancies as “routine” and suggested they may have occurred due to circumstances, though not intentionally. He confirmed that he had not instructed the senior doctor to retest the Blood Pressure or heart sound.

As per the Medical & Health Manual, the medical certificate must be issued confidentially to the Personnel Department in the prescribed format, clearly stating whether the candidate is fit or requires re-examination. In cases of temporary unfitness, the candidate must be advised to seek treatment and report within six months.

In this case, although the candidate appeared for examination on schedule, the certificate declaring him temporarily unfit was forwarded to the Personnel Department only after five days, issued in the wrong format, and without any reasons for unfitness. The Personnel Department did not insist on receiving the correct Annexures and failed to inform the candidate until the Vigilance Department began its inquiry.

𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲:

Based on these findings, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommended the following penalties:

Major Penalty on the following:

*Director I/C (Medical & Health Services)

* The Senior Doctor

* The Ophthalmologist

Minor Penalty on Officer-in-Charge, Recruitment Section, Personnel Department

The management accepted the CVC’s advice, initiated disciplinary proceedings against all concerned officials, and imposed appropriate penalties.

𝗡𝗕:

For the information of readers, it may be noted that a Vigilance Inspector was deputed to the candidate’s native village to record his statement. During the visit, it was observed that the family lived in conditions of extreme poverty — a dilapidated house, minimal clothing, and visibly distressed parents. In such circumstances, the alleged demand of ₹1 lakh as bribe came as a severe shock to the candidate. Overwhelmed and traumatised, he broke down and wept before the Vigilance Inspector while narrating his ordeal.

NB: This case study is compiled exclusively for general awareness and capacity-building. Names and identifiers have been intentionally omitted, and no portion of this document is intended to malign, defame, or adversely reflect upon any person or organisation.