A HUDDERSFIELD family doctor has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
Dr Dev Dutt, of Fartown Health Centre, was given the verdict and a reprimand from the General Medical Council over an issue relating to his own family passport application.
Trouble centred on a row over passports for his two daughters.
The GMC's Fitness To Practice Panel said it had found his actions "dishonest, misleading and unprofessional".
But it was told Dr Dutt had been suffering great problems due to an acrimonious divorce.
The panel heard he had even been sleeping in his car on occasions.
It was alleged he lied to the Passport Office when he applied for passports in his daughters' names, knowing they were included on his wife's passport.
When they arrived, he told officials he'd only received one - so they sent him another.
But when they asked for all three back, he claimed he didn't have them in his possession and couldn't get access to them.
Dr Dutt was questioned at Huddersfield police station over the matter in June last year. Dr Dutt's car was searched there and the three passports found in it.
Dr Dutt and several witnesses gave evidence at a three-day hearing in Manchester.
He claimed the applications were made on his behalf by a retired solicitor and friend.
A report from the panel said: "The panel has noted that at the time of these events you were suffering extreme domestic difficulties and were in the course of acrimonious divorce proceedings and were also a party to other domestic legal proceedings.
"They have noted that following the issue of a court order, you were required to move out of the family home in March, 2003, and were staying with friends, in hotels and on occasions, in your car."
Dr Dutt had no previous disciplinary hearings against him.
Witnesses said he was dedicated to his profession and held in high regard by patients, colleagues and friends.
But the panel told him: "Your conduct has fallen short of the standards of behaviour expected of a registered medical practitioner.
"The panel has therefore judged you to have been guilty of serious professional misconduct."
Panel members agreed to issue a reprimand, adding: "Your actions did not relate to your clinical work or cause direct or indirect patient harm."