IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6433 of 2009 SRI RAM RAI, aged about 57 years, son of late Sri Prahalad Rai, resident of Mohalla – Housing Board Colony Janta Flat No. 56, P.S. Rampur, District – Gaya. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Director-in-chief, Health, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. 4. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bodh Gaya, District – Gaya. 5. The Deputy Superintendent, Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya. …. Respondents. ----------- 03/ 12.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. By order dated 22.6.2009 time was allowed to the counsel for the State for filing counter affidavit, but it has not been filed. Counsel for the State submits that till date he has not received any instruction, as such counter affidavit could not be filed. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 845 dated 15.12.2008 issued by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bodh Gaya and also the order contained in letter no. 760 dated 18.4.2009 issued by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. By these orders the respondents have threatened the petitioner that in the light of the audit objection, relating to - 2 - defalcation of Rs. Four lacs by the petitioner from the General Provident Fund Account and finding petitioner’s involvement in it, a criminal case will be instituted against the petitioner as per the opinion of the Government Advocate. The petitioner has been asked to submit evidence within a week or action will be taken against him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is an example of total non-application of mind. So far the observation/direction contained in the impugned orders, they have been passed in total dis-regard of order passed in the order passed in a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, for same allegation, exonerating him from the charges. Even the judgment of acquittal passed in a criminal case by the Criminal Court, instituted against the petitioner, for the same allegation, has been completely ignored by the respondents. It is a case of total double jeopardy. The petitioner is being threatened to be prosecuted again and again, for same charges. The statement made by the petitioner is substantiated by Annexure-2, in which it is specifically stated that for the same charges in the year, 1998 petitioner - 3 - was put under suspension. Subsequently a departmental proceeding initiated in which also petitioner was exonerated from all the charges. In G.R. Case No. 108 of 1990/ Tr. No. 291 of 2004 he was acquitted. These facts are well within the knowledge of Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Gaya. Despite this fact, the respondent Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Gaya has issued Annexure-6 i.e. letter no. 760 dated 18.4.2009 also threatened the petitioner. The impugned letters are example of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Their acts are completely illegal. The petitioner cannot be prosecuted for same allegation again and again when already he has been acquitted in the criminal case as well as exonerated in the departmental proceeding. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 15.12.2008 contained in Memo No. 845 issued by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bodh Gaya, as well as letter no. 760 dated 18.4.2009 issued by the Civil Surgeon –cum- Chief Medical Officer, Gaya are quashed. The respondents are restrained from issuing any such letter in future against the - 4 - petitioner with respect to same allegations, from which petitioner has already been exonerated and acquitted. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)