IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12801 of 2008 SHAMBHU NATH SINHA, S/O LATE INDRADEO SINHA, R/O HOUSE NO.LIG 1/15, MOHALLA-HANUMAN NAGAR, P.S.-PATRAKAR NAGAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, NALANDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, PATNA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 24.08.2011 The action taken by the then Director-in-Chief, namely, Gita Prasad is shocking and is deprecated. This Court finds it a fit case in which he should explain his conduct as to why appropriate action be not taken by the Government against him. Vide annexure-1, he has passed orders, as contained in memo no. 399(4) dated 10.03.2008, initiating a proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules on allegation against the petitioner of having practiced fraud with the Department and suppressing the facts by submitting a false certificate of age at the time of his appointment. The very fact that the proceeding has been initiated under Rule 43(b) shows that the petitioner had 2 superannuated earlier. The impugned order also makes it abundantly clear that no proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner prior to this. Hence, any initiation of proceeding under Rule 43(b) had to conform to the limitations provided in the Rule, one of which is that it should be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of the proceeding. Proceeding was initiated on 10.03.2008 by the impugned order. On the basis of the alleged forged certificate in respect of his date of birth petitioner was appointed in service in 1972, much beyond the limitation of four years. A high functionary like the Director-in-Chief did not at all apply his mind that the proceeding was barred under law. He has passed this order mechanically without even looking to the provisions of Rule 43(b). A counter affidavit has been filed in the case which is also a mechanical exercise and merely supports the allegation made in the impugned order as well as in the charge. But there is no answer in the counter affidavit and learned counsel for the 3 respondents has also totally failed to answer the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding was apparently barred under the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the said Rules. In the circumstances, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, passed by Gita Prasad the then Director-in-Chief, Health Services, as contained in memo no. 399(4) dated 10.03.2008, and all subsequent steps taken pursuant to the said order, are quashed. The writ application is allowed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be realized from the said Gita Prasad, the then Director-in-Chief, Health Services from his salary/pension after due notice and opportunity to him to explain his conduct. The cost must be realized and paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)