IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.9283 OF 2004 DR.AMRENDRA KUMAR 'AMAN', SON OF SHRI L.C.RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARAWA, POLICE STATION ASAW, DISTRICT SIWAN. AT PRESENT WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MUNGER.PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETRY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON –CUM- CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MUNGER ……………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS *********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. DINU KUMAR, ADVOCATE MR. BINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE ********* 3 02/12/2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders as contained in Annexure-5 and Annexure-11 to the writ application. By Annexure-5 dated 04.07.2003, the petitioner has been awarded punishment of censure whereas by Annexure-11, the petitioner has not only been awarded punishment of censure but it has also been observed that the petitioner would not be entitled to the payment of salary or allowances except subsistence allowance for the period under suspension. The petitioner was put under suspension primarily for the reason that he did not attend the meeting which was held by the District Magistrate on 15.11.1999 & 25.11.1999. Later, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charge sheet was submitted against the 2 petitioner on 14.11.2001. The petitioner has filed his show cause which is contained in Annexure-4, which has led to the impugned orders. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and thus, the petitioner had no way of knowing the materials that have come against him in the departmental proceeding. It is well settled law that the copy of the enquiry report ought to be served upon the incumbent who is facing the disciplinary proceeding. In any event, the Under Secretary of the Government has passed an order of censure after considering the enquiry report. The order which is contained in Annexure-5 can hardly be called an ‘order’ as it does not disclose a single line showing application of mind of the concerned authority. The order merely states that after considering the enquiry report, the petitioner is awarded the punishment of censure. After the order of censure, issued on 04.07.2003, the petitioner filed a representation (Annexure-6) to the Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Health Department which was reiterated by Annexure-7 and Annexure-10, praying therein that he should be exonerated from the punishment of censure. While disposing of the aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner – cum- Secretary not only confirmed the punishment of 3 censure, but in addition also ruled that the petitioner would not be entitled to payment of salary or allowances except subsistence allowance for the period under suspension. This Court has already held that Annexure-5 is a non-speaking order and can hardly be justified but the order contained in Annexure-11 is beyond the principles underlying departmental proceeding jurisprudence. It is unimaginable that the authority should inflict the punishment for unknown reasons or merely because the incumbent concerned had asked for payment of salary during the suspension period. It is unheard of and cannot be sustained for any reason whatsoever. In the result, I quash Annexure-5 on the ground that it is a non-speaking order and Annexure-11 for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. The department concerned may initiate fresh proceedings from the stage of holding a fresh enquiry into the matter if it thinks fit and proper, keeping in mind that the occurrence took place in the year 1999 and charges were framed in the year 2001. This application is allowed to the extent aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )