IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7351 of 2003 Smt.Asha Shrivastava, W/O Shri Anand Swaroop Srivastava, resident of village Garhitir Korar, Bhagwan Bazar, P.O. Bhagwan Bazar, District- Gaya ……… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3.Dr.Sudhir Kumar Mahto, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Saran at Chapra 4.Dr.Umashankar Prasad, Additional Civil Surgeon, Saran at Chapra 5.Dr.Shashi Shekhar Prasad Singh, Incharge Medical Officer, District Training Team, Chapra …….. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Aditya Prakash Sahay and Mrs.Aparna Bharti,Adv. For the State : Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A.1 ----------- 5. 24/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay her salary from March, 2003 till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s salary was withheld as respondent no.5, the then Incharge Medical Officer, District Training Team, Chapra had become vindictive against her and had debarred her from marking her attendance. It is contended that petitioner filed several representations before different authorities of the Department - 2 - for necessary directions to respondent no.5 to allow her to mark her attendance and work in the office. However, the same could not be done. Ultimately, petitioner received an order of her transfer somewhere in Darbhanga, which she challenged in a writ application in this Court. Her writ application was dismissed, against which, she preferred L.P.A.No.185 of 2004. Before the Division Bench in the said L.P.A., learned counsel for the State agreed that if petitioner joins in the office of Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Chapra, she will be assigned her duties. On that assurance, given by learned counsel for the State before the Division Bench, operation of the order passed by the writ Court was stayed on 23.2.2004. It appears that pursuant to the said order, petitioner joined in the office of Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hsopital, Chapra on 4.3.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since then petitioner is being paid her salary. Therefore, grievance of petitioner in this writ application has become confined to non-payment of salary of the period March, 2003 upto 4th March, 2004. He submits that during this - 3 - period petitioner had not been allowed to work in the office by respondent no.5 and she was not allowed to mark her attendance. With the reply to the counter affidavit filed today, several documents have been brought on record to show that petitioner had been applying for permission to mark her attendance and for allowing her to work in the office of respondent no.5. However, in the counter affidavit, respondents have taken the stand that, by an order of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, contained in memo dated 12.4.2003, petitioner was placed under the control of Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hsopital, Chapra, but petitioner did not join and the matter was reported to the Director-in-Chief, Health Services by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer by letters dated 17.5.2003 and 20.6.2003, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures-B and B/1 respectively with the counter affidavit. Letters of the Civil Surgeon to the Director-in-Chief, Health Services also shows that the petitioner had disobeyed the orders and was mounting pressure to continue her - 4 - with the District Training Team. Civil Surgeon had requested the Director-in-Chief, Health Services to transfer petitioner to some other district as she had stayed in the district for over fifteen years. It appears that pursuant to the said request of the Civil Surgeon, petitioner was transferred in the district of Darbhanga, which was challenged by petitioner in the writ application unsuccessfully, but got some relief by the Division Bench in L.P.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of the Civil Surgeon dated 12.4.2003 (Annexure-A), placing petitioner’s services under Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Chapra was never communicated to her and prior to her transfer order in the district of Darbhanga, she never came to know about the same. He submits that it was for the first time when petitioner received the order of her transfer to Darbhanga, she came to know about this order as the transfer order mentioned about this memo of the civil surgeon also. Although it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that the said memo dated - 5 - 12.4.2003 of the Civil Surgeon was sent to petitioner by registered post as well as by special messenger which was refused by her, petitioner has pleaded in her reply to the counter affidavit specifically denying this fact. Be that as it may, fact remains that salary of petitioner for almost one year stands withheld. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was ever given show cause notice in respect of her conduct and was given any opportunity to explain as to under what circumstances she had not join in the office of the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Chapra pursuant to the said memo dated 12.4.2003. If the contention of petitioner is correct that she never became aware of the said memo then she has a case. But this fact has to be ascertained with reference to the records. However, this much is clear that without any proceeding and without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice, her salary has been withheld by the respondents. In the circumstances, since the counter affidavit filed in this case is of 2003, this - 6 - Court gives liberty to the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, if he so chooses, to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain her conduct and satisfy him with regard to her bonafide in not joining the office of the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Chapra pursuant to said memo dated 12.4.2003. If petitioner satisfies the Civil Surgeon in respect of her conduct, he shall pass orders for release of her withheld salary forthwith. The same must be done and any enquiry must be completed within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the Civil Surgeon does not take any action within two months, it will be presumed that respondents have no grievance against the petitioner and her salary of the period shall be released within one month from the next date of expiry of the said two months. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)