IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11108 of 2008 DR.NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, S/O SHRI RAM LALA PRASAD SINGH, AT PRESENT MEDICAL OFFICER (WAITING FOR POSTING), R/O MOHALLA-BEHTA, LAHERISARAI, P.S.-LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. DY. DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 8. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER-CUM-CIVIL SURGEON, BHAGALPUR. 9. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER-CUM-CIVIL SURGEON, SITAMARHI. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 23.11.2011 In the main writ application, petitioner has made a prayer for quashing of letter dated 29 dated 21.04.2005 (Annexure- 12) by which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and charge memo was served also. He has also prayed for quashing of another memo no.9 dated 25.04.2008 (Annexure-24) by which another Inquiry Officer had issued notice to him to appear in another inquiry. This subsequent letter was issued to him consequent to initiation of a fresh proceeding against him without concluding the first proceeding. 2 Now, through I.A. No.7501 of 2011 petitioner has brought on record the charge memo issued to him, vide resolution no.839(9) dated 17.09.2007 (Annexure-26), by which on the same charges a fresh proceeding has been initiated against him and has prayed for quashing of this resolution also, pursuant to which, Annexure-24 had been issued. The I.A. is allowed. Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the said resolution, as contained in Annexure-26, also. Brief submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by Annexure-12 charges were served on the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated. He participated in the same and filed his explanation. Proceeding was held and Inquiry Officer did not find him guilty of the charges and submitted his report accordingly. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He differed with the same and issued another notice to him, vide Annexure-15, assigning reasons for his difference with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and asked for explanation from the petitioner. Petitioner 3 filed his explanation to this notice also, vide Annexure-16. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not pass final orders in the proceeding and, completely abandoning the same, initiated a fresh proceeding against him, vide Annexure-26, with the charge memo which was verbatim the same except paragraph 2 of the charge, which mentioned that petitioner had entered into argument with the concerned Clerk and had used un-parliamentary language. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report, it was obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the proceeding and pass final orders. He accepts that the Disciplinary Authority was not obliged to accept the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Hence, he rightly issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with his reasons for difference, to which petitioner had replied. Thereafter, legally Disciplinary Authority had to come to a conclusion and pass final orders either accepting his explanation and the inquiry report or by rejecting his explanation to his 4 difference of opinion with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and pass a punishment order. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that for valid reasons the Disciplinary Authority could also direct the Inquiry Officer for further inquiry, but it was not legally open to him to abandon the inquiry half way and initiate a fresh proceeding for the same charges. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.R.Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise Shillong (1971) 2 SCC 102; J.N.Roy Biswas Vs.State of Assam (1976)1 SCC 234 and Kanailal Bera Vs. Union of India (2007) 11 SCC 517, subsequently relied upon by this Court in its judgment in the case of Dr.Narendra Narain Rai [2010 (4) PLJR 1012]. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this case. Learned AAG- IV appears and submits that the charges are not verbatim the same and in the second proceeding there was an additional charge to the extent that petitioner had entered into argument with the dealing assistant and had used un-parliamentary language. Hence, he 5 submits that fresh proceeding is not on the self same charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the second charge a separate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which, as admitted by learned AAG- IV also, had already concluded. If for the second charge, as contained in annexure-26, there was admittedly a separate proceeding which was concluded, the said charge could not be included in any pending proceeding or in any further charge framed against the petitioner initiating a fresh proceeding. Moreover the last two lines of the charge with Annexure-26 shows that he was being charged only on account of first charge, i.e., with regard to his unauthorized absence for more than six years. This was exactly the same charge in the first proceeding also. Hence, this second proceeding and the second charge is clearly on the same charge on which the first proceeding was held and which is admittedly pending at the stage of the Disciplinary Authority for final decision. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner is 6 squarely within the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above-said judgments as followed by this Court in the said judgment in the case of Dr. Narendra Narain Rai (supra). As a result, the resolution of the Government, as contained in Annexure-26, together with the charge memo, and notice issued by the Inquiry Officer, as contained in Annexure-24, are quashed. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to conclude the first proceeding pending against the petitioner take it to its logical end and pass final orders in accordance with law which he must do within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)