IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2513 of 2008 DILIP KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 9.5.08 Heard Mr. Satyavrat verma for the petitioner, and Mr. Roy Shivaji Nath, learned Additional Advocate General No.4. This writ petition is directed against the order, bearing memo no. 1339(11), dated 29.11.2007 (Annexure- 4), passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the preface of the impugned order states that the charges have been proved. In his submission, therefore, the impugned order is punitive in character and cannot be resorted to. He next submits that the petitioner had earlier been served with the same charges. He relies on the judgment reported in 1995(2) P.L.J.R. 89 (Paragraph-9) (Govind Prasad Sinha Vrs. The State of Bihar & anr.). He next submits that the respondent authorities have in their counter affidavit 2 tried to support the impugned order on the basis of the charges which were not in their minds and surely not indicated in the impugned order, when the impugned order was passed. He relies on the well known judgment reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851(Mohindra Singh Gill and another V. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others). He lastly submits that the charge-sheet has not been served on him till date and the impugned order is time barred. He relies on the judgment of the Division Bench reported in 2008(1) P.L.J.R.731( Chandra Shekhar Prasad Vs. The State fof Bihar & Ors). The learned Additional Advocate General has placed his counter affidavit and has supported the impugned action. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner’s first contention is stated only to be rejected. The preface of the impugned order cannot be read in isolation, and has to be read as a whole. The preface of the impugned order seems to suggest that a preliminary enquiry was conducted in which a prima facie case was found against the 3 petitioner leading to the enquiry. The charges have not been proved and the impugned order is not punitive in character which is manifest from the following portion of the impugned order. buds fo#} vkjksi i= xBu rFkk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pkyw djus dh dkjZokbZ vyx ls dh tk jgh gSA The second contention also does not survive a close scrutiny. The impugned order has not indicated at all as to the substance of the charges to be framed against the petitioner. It only states that the same has been passed in view of the decision to initiate a departmental proceeding. The counter affidavit briefly indicates the substance of the article of charges which on the face of it suggest that the same were in existence at the time the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Mohindra Singh Gill’s case. This decision has been considered and explained by the Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment’s wherein it has been clarified that the respondent authorities, when called upon to explain an action, can always rely on the circumstances obtaining at the time the impugned order was passed. It is 4 impermissible to explain the impugned order on the basis of the circumstances or grounds which were not existence at the time the impugned order was passed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I have no manner of doubt that the substance of articles of charges indicated in the counter affidavit were in existence at the time the impugned order was passed. The contention is rejected. In so far as the last contention is concerned, in view of the nature of the gravity of the allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the plea of delay intervening the period of suspension and service of charge- sheet. The petitioner is alleged to have committed serious financial irregularities and assaulted his superior. In such a situation, it is not possible to give to the petitioner the benefit of delay which may have occurred in serving the charge- sheet. I must note the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the charge-sheet shall be served on the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. There is no merit in this writ 5 petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S. K. Katriar,J.) Vinay/