Geoffrey O'Donoghue, consultant chief psychiatrist at St Senan's Hospital, Co Wexford, was wrongly suspended following a dispute with another doctor, the High Court decided yesterday.
Ms Justice Fidelma Macken said Mr O'Donoghue had not been given a fair hearing and his legal rights had been infringed upon by his employer, the South Eastern Health Board.
Judge Macken said differences between Mr O'Donoghue and the health board had arisen in the past and he had previously sought to legally challenge a health board decision to establish an investigation team to look into certain allegations against him.
She said that in April 2002 the health board had set in train disciplinary procedures against Mr O'Donoghue, furnishing him with seven appendices of complaint from nine complainants, to which he had responded in June of that year.
Judge Macken said the health board's decision to suspend him on full pay arose out of an incident which had occurred in the hospital in January 2003.
There had been a dispute in the hospital between Mr O'Donoghue, as resident medical superintendent, and a Dr Watters, as clinical tutor, as to who should have final responsibility for the allocation of non-consultant doctors.
That dispute had been the subject of correspondence and references to professional bodies before an incident occurred in the interview room of a ward of St Senan's Hospital on January 3rd. Mr O'Donoghue had contended that during this incident he had been verbally abused, threatened, and physically manhandled by Dr Watters in the presence of patients and staff, all allegations which Dr Watters had denied.
Judge Macken said Mr O'Donoghue had immediately made a formal written complaint in respect of this to the hospital manager, which went up to the chief executive officer of the health board, who appointed an investigation team.
She said the investigation team reported that the comments complained of had been made in a tense situation and had not constituted verbal abuse. It had also concluded it could find no evidence to support the allegation of any threat or physical assault on Mr O'Donoghue.
Judge Macken said the board's CEO had written to Mr O'Donoghue about the findings and had stated: "I am satisfied that the allegations made by you are without foundation. It appears to me that your conduct in bringing such a complaint presents an immediate and serious risk to health, safety and welfare of staff . . . I am now obliged to consider requiring you to take immediate administrative leave with pay while this matter is investigated."
The CEO had given Mr O'Donoghue 72 hours to answer a question: "Why did you take the actions you did on the morning of January 3rd, 2003 and subsequently make unfounded allegations against Dr Watters?"
Mr O'Donoghue's reply had stated he considered the CEO's proposal to suspend him for making a complaint not only unfair, "but grotesque".
Judge Macken said the allegation made against Mr O'Donoghue was extremely serious, and that the board was only entitled to suspend Mr O'Donoghue on his having full information of the allegations he had to face and the nature of any investigation. This had not been the case and Mr O'Donoghue's legal rights had thereby been infringed. His right to a fair hearing had not been met.
Judge Macken quashed the board's decision of April 8th, 2003. Precise court orders will be made in the new law term, which begins on October 3rd.