Karnataka HC Orders Disciplinary Action Against IAS Officer Mohammed Mohsin, SIMS Director Over Sexual Harassment Case
The Karnataka High Court has ordered disciplinary proceedings against senior IAS officer Mohammed Mohsin, Additional Chief Secretary of the Department of Medical Education, and Dr Virupakshappa, Director of the Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS), after finding that their conduct in dealing with a sexual harassment case involving a doctor was unbecoming of government servants. The court said the two officials had acted in a manner that effectively protected the accused doctor rather than ensuring that the serious allegations made by female medical students were dealt with appropriately.
The strong observations came from a Division Bench comprising Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf while hearing a batch of petitions connected with the transfer of Dr Ashwin Hebbar, an associate professor at SIMS who faced allegations of sexually harassing female medical students. The Bench also made unusually sharp remarks about Hebbar, referring to him as a “wolf in white coat” and directing that the matter be brought to the notice of the National Medical Commission (NMC) for independent consideration.
High Court Questions How the Case Was Handled
The court’s concern centred not only on the allegations against Dr Hebbar but also on how the institutional authorities dealt with the complaints and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The Bench took the view that the conduct of IAS officer Mohammed Mohsin and SIMS Director Dr Virupakshappa did not meet the standards expected from public servants when dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and harassment involving students.
The judges observed that the two officials had “conducted themselves unbecoming of government servants” in relation to the allegations involving female students at SIMS and in the manner in which the accused doctor was allegedly protected. The court’s remarks underline the seriousness with which it viewed the administrative decisions taken during the disciplinary process.
The controversy eventually reached the High Court in connection with the transfer of Dr Hebbar from SIMS to the Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences (HIMS). The Bench examined the circumstances surrounding his suspension, the subsequent revocation of that suspension and the administrative decisions that eventually resulted in his transfer.
Why Did Dr Ashwin Hebbar Face Action?
The matter dates back to August 2022, when the first complaint of sexual harassment was made against Dr Hebbar by a student. According to the case material, the Local Complaints Committee found a prima facie case of sexual harassment after examining the complaint.
Despite that finding, the court noted that a departmental inquiry was not initiated at that stage. Dr Hebbar was suspended, but the suspension order was later set aside by the Karnataka High Court in 2024. The matter did not end there, however, as another complaint emerged several years later.
In 2025, a second-year postgraduate student made another complaint against the doctor. This time, the Internal Complaints Committee of the institution also found the allegations to be prima facie true, bringing the issue back into focus and triggering a fresh round of administrative and legal action.
Arrest, Suspension and Departmental Charge Sheet
Following the second complaint, Dr Hebbar was arrested and subsequently released on bail. The authorities then placed him under suspension on July 3, 2025, as the allegations were being dealt with through the appropriate proceedings.
The disciplinary process moved ahead with the issuance of a departmental charge sheet on November 12, 2025. At this point, formal disciplinary proceedings were already pending against the doctor in relation to the allegations.
It was against this backdrop that the subsequent decision to revoke his suspension came under intense judicial scrutiny. The timing of that decision became one of the key issues considered by the High Court.
Mohammed Mohsin Revoked Suspension and Ordered Transfer
On November 17, 2025, IAS officer Mohammed Mohsin, in his capacity as Additional Chief Secretary, issued an order revoking Dr Hebbar’s suspension and transferring him from SIMS to HIMS.
The decision was challenged before the Karnataka High Court. A Single Judge initially stayed the transfer order after Dr Hebbar approached the court. The matter subsequently came before the Division Bench in appeal, which examined the circumstances surrounding the transfer and the earlier suspension.
The Division Bench took a different view of the situation concerning the complainants. It observed that allowing the accused doctor to remain at SIMS could cause further distress to the students who had made the allegations against him.
The judges remarked that continuing the stay on the transfer would effectively amount to “adding salt to the injury” of a victim who would have to encounter the accused doctor at the institution on a daily basis.
Court Raises Questions Over Mohsin’s Affidavit
The Bench also expressed concern over the affidavit filed by IAS officer Mohammed Mohsin during the proceedings. According to the court, the affidavit did not disclose an earlier communication sent by Mohsin to the Director of SIMS on September 22, 2025.
In that communication, Mohsin had reportedly asked the SIMS Director to examine Dr Hebbar’s representation seeking revocation of his suspension. The Director subsequently recommended reinstatement, stating that Hebbar’s return would be beneficial for the institution, patient care and teaching activities.
The High Court examined the sequence closely because the recommendation ultimately preceded the decision to withdraw the suspension. The judges questioned the circumstances in which the suspension was revoked despite the disciplinary process already having progressed to the stage of a formal charge sheet.
The court’s criticism was not limited to the administrative outcome. It also focused on the manner in which the relevant facts were presented before the judiciary, particularly the omission regarding the September 22 communication.
Why Did the Court Question the Reinstatement?
The Bench noted that the departmental charge sheet had already been issued by the time the suspension was withdrawn. In the court’s assessment, there was no sufficient justification for cancelling the suspension only about four-and-a-half months after it had been imposed, especially given the nature of the allegations.
The judges treated the sexual harassment allegations as a matter requiring serious institutional attention. The decision to revoke the suspension while disciplinary proceedings remained pending therefore came under close judicial examination.
The High Court ultimately found the reinstatement decision unjustified. It allowed the writ appeal filed by SIMS and dismissed the writ petitions filed by Dr Ashwin Hebbar.
High Court Calls Hebbar a ‘Wolf in White Coat’
One of the most striking features of the judgment was the language used by the Division Bench while referring to the allegations against Dr Hebbar. The judges described him as a “wolf in white coat”, reflecting the seriousness with which the court viewed the allegations involving medical students.
The Bench directed that disciplinary proceedings against him should be completed expeditiously. The court also considered that the matter warranted examination by the country’s medical regulator, given that the allegations involved alleged sexual misconduct by a medical professional. Accordingly, the court directed that a copy of its judgment be sent to the National Medical Commission for appropriate action.
NMC Asked to Examine Dr Hebbar’s Medical Licence
The High Court went beyond the departmental proceedings and asked the NMC to independently examine the matter. The Bench observed that if the allegations against Dr Hebbar were ultimately proved, the medical regulator should consider whether action against his professional licence was warranted.
This direction adds another layer to the proceedings. While the departmental process concerns his conduct as an employee and the institutional disciplinary framework, the NMC’s examination could address the professional regulatory implications arising from the allegations.
The court’s direction also highlights the importance of accountability in cases involving professionals who occupy positions of trust and authority, particularly when the alleged misconduct concerns students under their professional supervision.
Court’s Action Against Senior Officials
The proceedings also placed the conduct of IAS officer Mohammed Mohsin and SIMS Director Dr Virupakshappa under judicial scrutiny. The Bench specifically directed that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against both officials over the manner in which they handled the matter.
The court’s finding that their conduct was unbecoming of government servants is significant because it shifts part of the focus from the allegations against the doctor to the institutional response to those allegations. The judgment makes clear that authorities responsible for handling complaints of sexual harassment are expected to act with fairness, transparency and sensitivity toward complainants.
The case therefore raises broader questions about institutional accountability. When allegations of sexual harassment arise within an educational or medical institution, the response of administrators can become almost as important as the original disciplinary process because their decisions can influence whether complainants feel protected or further exposed.
A Case That Began in 2022 and Returned to Court Again
The chronology of the matter shows how the dispute developed over several years. The first complaint was made in 2022, followed by findings of a prima facie case by the Local Complaints Committee. The subsequent suspension was set aside by the High Court in 2024, but a second complaint in 2025 led to fresh proceedings.
The second complaint resulted in the arrest and suspension of Dr Hebbar, followed by the departmental charge sheet. The subsequent decision to revoke the suspension and transfer him to HIMS then triggered another round of litigation, eventually bringing the matter before the Division Bench.
The latest judgment has now placed the institutional handling of the case under a much sharper judicial lens. The disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officials and the regulatory examination by the NMC will determine the next stage of the matter.
What the Karnataka HC Order Means
The Karnataka High Court’s judgment carries significance beyond the individual dispute because it addresses the responsibilities of government officials when dealing with allegations of sexual harassment in an institutional setting. The court has made it clear that administrative decisions cannot be viewed in isolation when they affect complainants and the integrity of an ongoing disciplinary process.
For Dr Hebbar, the departmental proceedings are to be concluded expeditiously, while the NMC has been asked to independently examine the matter. For IAS officer Mohammed Mohsin and SIMS Director Dr Virupakshappa, the court has ordered disciplinary proceedings over their handling of the case.
The judgment has therefore opened multiple accountability tracks at the same time. One concerns the allegations against the doctor, another concerns the administrative conduct of senior officials, and a third could involve professional regulatory action depending on the findings of the NMC.
The case now moves into its next phase with disciplinary and regulatory processes set to continue. The High Court’s strong observations have already underlined one central point – allegations of sexual harassment involving students demand a careful, transparent and accountable institutional response, and officials entrusted with that responsibility can themselves face scrutiny if the court finds that they failed in that duty.
