IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7582 of 1997 ANUP KUMAR SINHA, son of Sri Kamal Kishor Prasad Sinha, resident of Mohalla 13, East Ashok Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh Colony, District and Town Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Shekhpura, Patna-14 4. Deputy Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Shekhpura, Patna-14 5. Head of the Department of Regional Institute of Ophtholmology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Campus, Shekhpura, Patna-14 … Respondents ----------- 9. 15.7.2010 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order dated 30.6.1997 has two facts:- (a) His repatriation from Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (I.G.I.M.S.) to his parent department in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. (b) Imposition of fine of Rs.200/-. Mr. Jha would submit that the petitioner was only under deputation in I.G.I.M.S. and therefore, if at all his work as an Ophthalmic Assistant was not required 2 by the I.G.I.M.S. he could have very well returned to his parent department but then sending back by also inflicting an order of punishment of fine would definitely cause stigma to the entire service record of the petitioner and that having been done not only by an authority who has no jurisdiction but also in breach of violation of principles of natural justice the impugned order cannot be sustained. There can be no two opinion on such submission in law but then at the end of the day the petitioner is an employee of the State Government who was on deputation in I.G.I.M.S. and therefore if he had been only sent back to his parent department he cannot have any grievance on that score. So far use of word ('Dand') for realizing Rs. 200/- from the petitioner in the impugned order is concerned, if it is carefully read with operative portion of the impugned order it becomes clear that the petitioner has failed to collect a sum of Rs. 200/- from the patients payable towards the fees of the Institute. Realization of such amount of Rs. 200/- thus may amount only to recover the 3 amount of the Institute lost due to negligence of the petitioner and it cannot be treated to be an order of punishment. Therefore, the word (Dand) used in the impugned order has to be understood only by way of realization of the amount of loss of the Institute. It is thus made clear that the impugned order will not be treated as an order of punishment nor the same would amount to stigma in the service record of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation and clarification, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/