IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1935 of 2007 Vinod Kumar Singh, son of late Rameshwar Prasad Singh, resident of C/o Sri Baikunth Prasad Singh, Mohanpur, Ward No.-13, Punaichak, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner cum the Appellate Authority, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director-cum-The Enquiry Conducting Officer, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Section Officer, Section-IV, Health Department (Presenting Officer), Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna. ---------- Respondents -------- 11 07.12.2011 At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the order dated 28.11.2011 in this case has inadvertently been recorded to have been passed in M.J.C No. 1935 of 2007 (Ansuman Sharma & Ors Vs. Most. Uma Sharma & Ors), which should have been C.W.J.C No. 1935 of 2007(Vinod Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors). In the considered opinion of this Court, learned counsel for the parties are correct, inasmuch as, there is a typographical error in the order dated 28.11.2011, which should be read to have been passed in this case i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1935 of 2007(Vinod Kumar Singh vs The State of Bihar & Ors). The order dated 28.11.2011, to the 2 extent indicated above, shall stand modified. Having heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kishore Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Enquiry Officer Mr. D.K. Raman as also counsel for the State, this Court is satisfied that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in course of conducting departmental proceeding for inflicting major punishment was totally de-hors the procedure contemplated in the Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding on charges in which Mr. D.K. Raman an officer of the Health Department was made Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had denied all the charges by filing his written statement of defence before the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Raman, the Enquiry Officer however, did not do anything further save and except that he had examined those defence of the petitioner and had submitted his enquiry report whereafter the order of punishment by way of dismissal from service of the petitioner just four days prior to his date of retirement was 3 passed. In such a situation, neither the counsel for State nor the counsel for the Enquiry Officer would be in a position to justify the impugned order of punishment, which is a major punishment, inasmuch as, the basic principles of natural justice for holding an enquiry was not at all followed by the Enquiry Officer. As a matter of fact, this Court is really concerned with the manner in which the departmental proceeding are being conducted in the Health Department where the Enquiry Officer themselves are not aware of the basic procedure of enquiry. There has been all along a marked difference between the procedure under Rule 55 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules meant for inflicting major punishment vis-a-vis minor punishment in terms of Rule 55A. The procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in the present case was under Rule 55A and on the basis of such enquiry report, the petitioner could not have been subjected to an order of punishment by way of dismissal from service. This aspect of the matter in fact has again been carried with greater 4 details in the Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules framed in the year 2005 and, therefore, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The impugned order of punishment dated 28.9.2004 as contained in Anenxure-20 and the consequential appellate order dated 21.12.2006 must be and is hereby accordingly quashed. Keeping in view of that the charges against the petitioner involves serious allegation of financial indiscipline for which an enquiry can still be continued and concluded even in terms of Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, this Court would give liberty to the respondents to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding by appointing a prudent Enquiry Officer well aware of the norms and conducting departmental proceeding within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since, the petitioner has filed his written statement of defence and that the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no document for the time 5 being would be required to answer the charges framed against him as also that the petitioner is in receipt of all the documents, this Court would give four weeks’ time to him to file his supplementary written statement of defence, whereafter, the Enquiry Officer must conclude his departmental proceeding within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such supplementary written statement of defence by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer also must proceed to complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of filing of supplementary written statement of defence filed by the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer may even proceed ex-parte in case the petitioner would not cooperate in course of the departmental proceeding. The Enquiry Officer in any event must submit his enquiry report to the disciplinary authority within a period of aforesaid five months. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, must take his final decision in terms of Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules in next three months. All the entitlement of the petitioner will also therefore depend on the outcome of the 6 enquiry and the resultant final order. With the aforementioned observations, liberty and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)