IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13576 of 2006 Jawahar Lall, son of late Devi Prasad, resident of Village Navlakha (Safiabad), P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Munger (Bihar). --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum-Secretary of Health Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director (Health Serices), Munger, Division, Munger. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Khagaria. 5. The Director, T.B. Demonstration and Training Centre, Agamkuan, Patna-7. 6. The Regional Deputy Director (Health Services), Purnea Division, Purnea. 7. The Civil Surgeon, Kishanganj. ----------- Respondents ----------- 4 5.7.2011 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. From reading of the materials on record as also perusal of the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally on serious charge of misconduct relating to purchase of medicine in MSD scam cases. The petitioner was in fact also inflicted punishment by the Direction-in-Chief of the Health Services vide his order dated 28.7.2005 dismissing him from service. Such order of punishment, however, was partly modified in appeal filed by the petitioner and the Principal Secretary of the Health Department in his appellate 2 order dated 30.3.2006, while rescinding the order of dismissal, had modified the order of punishment by directing to withhold three increments on cumulative basis as also entry of sensor in service record. In the writ application, no case has been made out as with regard to any prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of any procedural infirmity in course of conducting of the departmental proceeding and the whole emphasis of the petitioner is that once the appellate authority had set aside the order of dismissal, there should not have any punishment against the petitioner. The appellate order itself gives sufficient reason for modifying the order of punishment, inasmuch as, it has taken into account that the petitioner was not an accused in any criminal case arising out of the MSD scam and his misconduct was limited to making certain documents traceless and to that extent, the Principal Secretary has taken into account that the files relating to expenditure in custody of the petitioner was not handed over to his successor. The 3 appellate authority, accordingly, has come to a finding that since the more graver charge was not proved, he was entitled to be reinstated in service after being inflicted punishment of stoppage of three increments. Such modified punishment, in view of the findings arrived by the enquiry officer and duly supported by the document contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, cannot be held to be excessive, requiring interference of this Court. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)