IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12188 of 2002 SUBHASH PRASAD SINGH, son of Sri Krishna Nandan Singh, resident of village- Saraiya Gopal, P. S. Patahi, District- East Champaran, at Motihari at present posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre ( P. H. C.) Jogapatti, District- West Champaran. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur. 5. Incharge Medical Officer, Referal Hospital Sandesh, Bhojpur. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 28.06.2010 Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari after calling upon the respondents concerned to produce the letter of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur whereby and whereunder the salaries of the petitioner has been withheld w.e.f. 1.3.2001 without any rhyme and reason and to quash the letter of the District Magistrate, Bhojpur by which salaries was stopped and further for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to pay all the arrears of salary which has not been paid to the petitioner from 1.3.2001 till June 2002 with all due interests and further for 2 any other relief/reliefs, order/orders, direction/directions to which the petitioner may be found eligible and entitled to and which may deem fit proper and equitable in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinafter.” Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer, would submit that it was only a highhanded action on the part of the Collector of the District to have stopped the payment of salary and that such report of the Collector with regard to the petitioner being absent from duty could not have been made the basis for stoppage of salary of the petitioner. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that there are unimpeachable materials to show that the petitioner was consistently found absent from duty not only by one collector but also by a series of Collectors. In this context, he would refer to different reports of the Collectors as also of the Civil Surgeon suggesting that the petitioner was habitual defaulter in attending to his duty. He would also refer to the letter of Civil Surgeon, the deponent of the Counter affidavit contained in Annexure- F wherein he had made a 3 reference to the Health Department as with regard to continued absence of the petitioner and two others from duty and had recommended to initiate a departmental proceeding against them. The counter affidavit, however, has stopped at that point because it was sworn on 13.1.2003. The decision of the State Government on such recommendation of the Civil Surgeon has not been explained. There is however no denial to the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was also subjected to a show-cause notice of the Civil Surgeon himself asking him to explain his unauthorized absence from duty. All in all, it would appear that the petitioner was facing the allegation of being absent from duty and in fact for such misconduct the immediate controlling authority, namely, Civil Surgeon had also made a reference to the Health Department. However, neither of the party is aware as to whether any departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and/or what was the ultimate fate of the show-cause notice issued by the Civil Surgeon. Thus while this Court would not find any 4 error in the order passed by the Collector, who being the district head, on finding the authorities holding the Government posts to be absent from duty must be held to be entitled to take action for at least toning up the administration but then as withholding of salary is also a punishment, any final decision has to be taken only after giving a show-cause notice and/or an opportunity of hearing. Presently, in this case it would not be clear as to whether any final order has been passed but then it is born out from the record that there was a show-cause notice issued to the petitioner by the Civil Surgeon as also his recommendation to the State government Surgeon for initiating a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. That being so, this Court would direct the Principal Secretary of Health Department to look into the present position and if it is found that the salary of the petitioner from 1.3.2001 till June 2002 has not been paid only on account of want of a final decision, he would be required to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It is however clarified that if no departmental 5 proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and/or no final decision on the show-cause issued by the Civil Surgeon has been taken, the final decision after completing the proceedings must be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)