IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9631 of 2011 Shaligram Singh, S/O late Harihar Singh, R/O village- Sanokhar, District- Bhagalpur………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Health Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Govt., Deptt. Of Health, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur. 5. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 6. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhagalpur. 7. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Dhanaura, Kahalgaon, District- Bhagalpur. 8. Nandani Devi, w/o Saligram Singh, R/0 village and P.S. Sanokhar, District-Bhagalpur………… Respondents ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Subodh Prasad, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, A.C. to S.C.19 For Respondent No.8: Mr. Jagannath Singh, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. S.C. Giri, Advocate ----------- 4. 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and the private respondent No.8. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking an order for quashing the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, by which he has ordered to pay 50% salary of the petitioner, who is working as a Dresser in the office of the Civil Surgeon, to his wife, Nandani Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 apart from violation of the principles of natural justice, the order of the District Magistrate passed for deduction of 50% of the salary of the petitioner to be paid to his wife is also without jurisdiction. Learned counsels for the State and private respondent No.8 are unable to point out any provision of law under which the District Magistrate could have passed such an order. An attempt was made by learned counsel for respondent No.8 to rely upon the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 under which action can be taken against a public servant for the allegation of bigamy as levelled against the petitioner. In my view, the question of misconduct under the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules,1976, can have no relevance for passing an order of such nature as any such misconduct has to form the basis of disciplinary proceedings in which only one of the punishments, minor or major, prescribed under the relevant Service Rules can be awarded. The impugned order is certainly not in the nature of any such minor or major punishment that can be awarded in the disciplinary proceedings. 3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is clearly of the view that the District Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing an order of the nature that he has passed. For any such relief, appropriate remedies are provided under different enactments for which the competent authority is certainly not the District Magistrate. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur as also the consequential order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Dhanaura, Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur are both quashed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)