IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.983 OF 2007 DR.SHANKAR KUMAR JHA @ DR.S.K JHA, S/O DR. BINOD CHANDRA JHA, R/O VILLAGE ANDHARADHARI, P.O ANDHARA, P.S ANDHARA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI.AT PRESENT MEDICAL OFFICER SADAR BLOCK SASARAM, P.S SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH MEDICAL, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT HEALTH MEDICAL, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH MEDICAL, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5.THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH MEDICAL, EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 6.THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, ROHTAS, SASARAM. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 03/ 26.07.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner was passed in total defiance of the rules of natural justice, this Court will have no option but to hold that such order of punishment cannot be sustained. It is not in doubt that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally by framing a memo of charge and 2 departmental proceeding was thereafter conducted wherein, the inquiry officer in his inquiry report dated 22.11.2002 had found the charge against the petitioner of being absent from duty to be not proved. It appears from the records produced by the learned counsel for the State being the relevant file that such inquiry report dated 22.11.2002 had remained in the department unattended for more than one year and only on 03.01.2004 the aforesaid file had made some movement, wherein, the Deputy Secretary of the department had put his note before the Commissioner and Secretary of Health Department that the view taken by the inquiry officer in view of the nature of charge could not be accepted and that the petitioner should be inflicted minor punishment of censure as also withholding of salary for the period of suspension. It is this note of the Deputy Secretary which was approved by the Commissioner on 06.01.2004 and by the departmental minister on 13.01.2004, whereafter the 3 impugned order of punishment was communicated to the petitioner. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex court and this Court that the Disciplinary Authority has all the liberty to differ with the findings and conclusion recorded by the inquiry officer but before doing so, the delinquent who has been exonerated by the inquiry officer has to be given the opportunity of hearing. Reference in this connection may be made to judgment of the Apex court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors vs Kunj Behari Mishra reported in 1998(7) SCC 84. Admittedly such procedure was not adopted in the case of the petitioner and therefore, this Court will have no hesitation to quash the impugned order of punishment. Considering the fact that the petitioner had already suffered by way of his suspension for a period of more than one and a half year i.e. from 01.08.2002 to 09.03.2004 as against the charge of 4 his remaining absent on duty for two days, and that the clinching fact produced by the petitioner before the inquiry officer showing such grant of casual absence by the competent Authority was never called in question, this Court must hold that the charge against the petitioner was also not capable of being proved. That being so, ipsi dixit of the Deputy Secretary that there was some interpolation in the register for showing the petitioner present on duty will have no meaning especially when the inquiry officer as also this Court had occasion to look into the application filed by the petitioner on 11.12.2000 as contained in Annexure-4 wherein Deputy Superintendent of Sadar Hospital, Sasaram had himself granted leave to the petitioner for the period from 12.12.2000 to 19.12.2000. Considering all these aspects, this Court would not deem it to be a fit case for its being remitted for passing a fresh order after service of notice along 5 with report of the inquiry officer and/or disclosing reasons for differing with the inquiry report. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order of punishment as contained in Annexure-1 is quashed and the respondents are directed to pay full salary and emoluments for the period of suspension of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The original records produced by the learned counsel for the State should be returned back to him. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)