A second investigation into the Abhik Dey service quota case has recommended action not only against the doctor but also against several former West Bengal health officials, raising a wider question about how eligibility for postgraduate medical training is verified inside the state health administration. The findings, as reported by Anandabazar, point to gaps between formal transfer orders, hospital attendance records, vigilance clearance and the approval of a service-quota application.
The immediate issue is whether Dey was entitled to admission to the postgraduate surgery programme at SSKM Hospital through the service quota. The second investigation committee reportedly upheld the conclusion of an earlier committee that the quota benefit was not valid. It also recommended disciplinary action against officials who, according to the report, helped create or process the documentation that enabled the benefit.
That makes the case more than a dispute over one admission. Service quotas are designed to recognise doctors who work for a defined period in rural or difficult areas before receiving an opportunity for postgraduate training. The underlying administrative bargain is straightforward: public service in locations with limited medical capacity is exchanged for a structured career benefit. If the work was not performed, or if the records supporting it were created without adequate verification, the problem reaches beyond an individual applicant. It affects the credibility of the distribution system for medical specialists.
The first investigation committee, led by former NRS Medical College principal Pitbaran Chakraborty, submitted its report to the Health Department on October 4, 2024. After a change of government, a second four-member committee was formed. It was headed by Parthapratim Pradhan, principal of Sagar Dutta Medical College. The other members were Manas Bandyopadhyay, principal of RG Kar Medical College; Somnath Das, a doctor in SSKM’s forensic medicine and toxicology department; and Kaushik Mitra, a professor of community medicine at Burdwan Medical College. The second report was submitted on September 2, according to the report.
The second committee’s significance lies in its apparent confirmation of the earlier finding rather than a wholly different conclusion. Anandabazar reports that both committees held that Dey’s service-quota eligibility was not valid. The second committee also examined the institutional steps through which the claim was supported, bringing health department officials into the scope of potential disciplinary action.
The disputed service record centres on Anamoy Hospital near Burdwan. To qualify for the service quota, a doctor was required to work for three years in rural and difficult areas. Dey reportedly claimed that he had worked at Anamoy as a resident medical officer and clinical tutor in the radio-diagnosis department from December 31, 2018. However, the transfer order from Burdwan Medical College to Anamoy was issued on January 2, 2019. The two-day gap is one of the questions examined by the committee.
The report also says that the committee found no record of Dey joining Anamoy Hospital. The hospital superintendent, Shakuntala Sarkar, reportedly told the investigators that there was no document showing his joining. The hospital’s superintendent, medical technologist in the radio-diagnosis department and contractual health workers also allegedly said they had not seen him working there. The report does not establish that every operational record from the period was independently audited, but the absence of a joining record and the statements attributed to hospital staff form the central documentary concern.
Another issue is the classification of Anamoy Hospital itself. Medical organisations cited in the report argued that although the hospital is located within a panchayat area, it does not resemble the kind of rural health centre for which the service-quota benefit was intended. That distinction matters because administrative geography and service conditions are not necessarily the same thing. A location may fall within a rural local-government area while still having a substantially different level of infrastructure, staffing and accessibility from a remote public facility.
The committee also examined a file identified as ME-MISC 1852022, which was reportedly created as evidence of Dey’s work at Anamoy. The doctor Tanushree Mondal, who was responsible for such work at the time, told the committee that she had prepared the file on the instruction of then director of medical education Debashis Bhattacharya and the special secretary of the health education department. The reported finding creates an important administrative question: whether verification took place before the file was prepared, or whether documentation was assembled on the basis of instructions without checking whether the underlying work had occurred.
That is the critical weakness exposed by the case. A service-quota system depends on a chain of records: the posting order, joining report, attendance or duty records, confirmation by the receiving institution, departmental approval and vigilance clearance. Each document has a different function, but together they are meant to prevent a benefit from being granted on the basis of a single unsupported assertion. If the chain is incomplete and no office is responsible for reconciling the gaps, the system can produce an apparently valid file without establishing that the qualifying service took place.
The report further alleges that officials responsible for the health administration were unaware that Dey was not actually performing duty at Anamoy, despite his formal detachment there. The two principals of Burdwan Medical College during the relevant period, Suhrita Pal and Kaustav Nayak, reportedly told the committee that they did not know about his absence. Debashis Bhattacharya also reportedly said he was unaware of it. These accounts, if accurately recorded in the committee report, suggest a fragmented chain of responsibility in which the posting institution, receiving hospital and departmental headquarters did not share a verified picture of attendance.
The second committee also reportedly found that the required vigilance clearance for the service-quota admission was absent. The quota process required approval from the health department, known as a trainee reserve order, and a clearance from the vigilance cell. At the time, Aniruddha Niyogi was director of medical education. Anandabazar reported that he did not respond to the publication’s questions, although he is said to have maintained through close associates that the approval process may have contained defects but could be cancelled later if irregularities were found. The distinction is important: a conditional approval does not remove the need for a valid verification process before the benefit is granted.
The issue is also connected to the institutional crisis that followed the RG Kar case and allegations of a “threat culture” in medical colleges. Junior doctors’ protests had brought allegations involving Dey and Birupaksha Biswas into the public debate. The service-quota investigation therefore sits within a larger struggle over how medical institutions exercise authority, how professional advancement is allocated and whether junior doctors can trust internal complaint and disciplinary mechanisms.
The case also illustrates why administrative accountability in healthcare cannot be separated from urban governance. Kolkata’s major teaching hospitals depend on a wider regional network of district and peripheral hospitals. When doctors are formally assigned to those facilities but are not physically present, the immediate burden falls on patients outside the metropolitan core. The consequence is not only a disputed postgraduate seat. It can mean weaker specialist availability, overstretched staff and a failure to deliver the public service that justified the career incentive in the first place.
At the same time, the supplied report does not establish the final legal or departmental outcome. The investigation committee has recommended action, but the recommendations still require consideration and implementation by the Health Department. Health minister Sharadwat Mukhopadhyay said the file had not yet reached him and that he would comment after examining the report. The report also says that a previous statement submitted to the Calcutta High Court by then director of medical education Indrajit Saha had found no irregularity in Dey’s appointment, creating a further institutional contradiction that will need to be reconciled through the relevant records.
The central lesson is therefore about verification rather than only punishment. A service-quota system can remain credible only when eligibility is verified by records that are generated at the point of service, checked by the receiving institution and reconciled by an authority independent of the applicant’s immediate administrative chain. The investigation’s recommendation against multiple officials indicates that the committee viewed the alleged irregularity as dependent on institutional assistance, not as an isolated act by one doctor.
What remains uncertain is whether the Health Department will accept the committee’s recommendations, cancel the service-quota benefit, initiate disciplinary proceedings and explain how the earlier approval was granted. Those decisions will determine whether the case becomes a limited disciplinary action or a test of whether West Bengal’s health administration can close the documentary and institutional gaps exposed by the investigation.
