IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7490 of 2004 DR.PARVEEN KUMAR SINHA, SON OF DR. J. MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASULPUR, P.O. BAHACHAUKI, P.S. MEDINICHAUKI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT “VISHNU VARDAN” AT SRI KRISHNA ROAD, MUNGER, DISTRICT MUNGER. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVE RNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER. 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON, MUNGER. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT, SADAR HOSPITAL, MUNGER, DISTRICT MUNGER. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS *********** 3 1.12.2010 Petitioner has challenged the order contained in Annexure-1 by which the petitioner has been inflicted four punishments i.e. censure, stoppage of pay with cumulative effect, payment of only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and when exonerated from the suspension, he will have to join headquarters. The facts of the case are that on 24.9.2002, the Minister of the Department visited Sadar Hospital, Munger at 11.25 a.m. and found that the petitioner who is a doctor at the hospital was not present. On 2 the basis of the aforesaid fact, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the enquiry in the departmental proceeding which is contained in Annexure-7, the enquiry officer has commented as follows: “Maine vidhiwat tarike se vibhagiya karyawahi ka sanchalan kiya . Sakshya avam pratiraksha me prastut kiye gaye avam samarpit abhilekho ka janch kiya. Tatpaschat main is niskarsh par pahucha hu ki Dr. Sinha sambhawatah ukta tithi ko karya kiye ho sakte hain aur nahi bhi. Atah meri anusansha hai ki Dr. Sinha ko sandeh ka labh dete huye nindan ki saja ya vetan vridhi ke rokne ki anushansha ke sath nilamban mukt karne ko disha me kararwai karne ki kripa ki jaye.” From the aforesaid comments of the enquiry officer, two facts are very relevant. Firstly, the enquiry officer could not reach the conclusion that the petitioner had in fact not performed his duty on the relevant date. It would also be evident that the enquiry officer has not recorded the facts or the evidence by which 3 he came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not attended the hospital on 24.9.2002. The enquiry officer has recommended a punishment of censure or stoppage of one increment and also recommended for revocation of suspension. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, Annexure-1 is said to have been issued. The order of punishment differs from the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer has recommended only one punishment whereas the petitioner has been inflicted three punishments in the order impugned. It would be relevant that before differing with the recommendations of the enquiry officer or inflicting punishments, such as stoppage of one increment and the punishment of payment of subsistence allowance for the period under suspension, the petitioner was issued no show cause in the matter, which is essential in a case such punishments are inflicted as has already been decided by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2006 (4) PLJR 515 and in 4 the case of Pawan Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 602. This Court also finds that the order imposing punishment is defective in view of the fact that once the Enquiry Officer has given the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, the imposition of punishment seems to be directly inconflict with such a finding. Unless the Secretary of the Health Department finds that the petitioner was guilty and reverses the finding of the enquiry officer giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, it would not be proper for the authority concerned to impose punishment without giving proper reasons for differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In the result, I quash the order dated 11.10.2003, issued by Memo No. 839 (9) Health. This writ application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)