IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11833 of 2008 Mohan Prasad Sinha, S/o Late Balmiki Prasad, resident of village Gousa Shekhpura, P.S. Pandarak, District Patna……………………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna………………Respondents ---------------------------------- 3 19.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application petitioner has challenged the order of punishment passed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services contained in Memo No.457 (4) dated 10.04.2004 (Annexure-5) by which he has been inflicted five punishments. Punishment Nos. 4 and 5 are not exactly punishments rather they are administrative orders. However, other punishments include withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect which is a major punishment. The order does not show that after enquiry report was submitted any second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he filed any reply to the 2 same or since he had failed to file a reply, punishment order has been passed. The order simply shows that in the wake of proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer had submitted report, on the basis of which, while releasing the petitioner from suspension, this punishment was awarded. In paragraph 12 of the writ application, petitioner has specifically pleaded that no show cause was asked for from him before inflicting major punishment which is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. This pleading has not been replied by respondents in the counter affidavit. Hence, this was sufficient to quash the punishment order. But since quashing of the impugned order on technical ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice by not issuing him second show cause notice will only revive the proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, insisted that this Court should go into the merits of the matter and consider the validity of initiation of the proceeding and the 3 enquiry itself. In the process, he placed before this Court charges framed against the petitioner as contained in Annexure-1. From the charge memo as contained in Annexure-1 it appears that petitioner was charged of having violated the Government Rules and committed financial irregularities in purchasing medicines from M.S.D. Calcutta beyond the allotment of fund made for the purpose by the Government. In the charge, the number and amount of issue vouchers issued in the year 1992-93 have been mentioned. The first issue voucher is numbered as 181.11.92 and last issue voucher is numbered as 211/10/93. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the reply of the petitioner to the charge as contained in Annexure-2. It may be noticed that in the charge, petitioner was described as the then Accountant - cum - Storekeeper, Referral Hospital, Bihta. In reply, petitioner has specifically denied that he ever functioned as Accountant and took the stand that all through, he was Compiler in the Referral 4 Hospital and for sometime he was handed over charge of Storekeeper. The Enquiry Officer has considered the reply of the petitioner. In his report as contained in Annexure-4 he has accepted that between period July 1989 to 31.05.1994, he was Compiler in the Referral Hospital, Bihta. Between this period, for two months he was posted as Compiler in the Primary Health Centre, Punpun. He has also accepted that he was never posted as Storekeeper-cum- Accountant rather he was given only additional charge of Storekeeper between 08.05.1993 to 31.05.1994. Thereafter he handed over the charge to another person. In his report, he has noticed that petitioner had received supply of medicines in respect of certain issue vouchers. The Enquiry Officer has not mentioned that there is any involvement of the petitioner in purchase of medicines through the said issue vouchers. He has noticed in his report that Dr. (Capt.) Pradeep Kumar, who was the then Medical Officer of the Referral Hospital during the period, had issued orders for purchase of medicines. 5 The Enquiry Officer has also noticed that issue vouchers and medicine vouchers which were received, bore signature of the Medical Officer only and there was no signature of any other employee on the same. He has found that the said Dr. (Capt) Pradeep Kumar did not have financial powers to purchase medicines from M.S.D., Calcutta. In his conclusion, he has found that said Dr. (Capt.) Pradeep Kumar was the main culprit in purchase of medicines and petitioner was only guilty of receiving medicines in the store and distributing it. At this stage it may again be noticed that the charge against the petitioner is of having violated Government Rules and Regulations in purchase of medicines beyond the sanctioned limits by the Government. Now from the finding of the Enquiry Officer itself it is clear that petitioner, in no way, was involved in purchase of medicines. Even if the report of the Enquiry Officer is accepted as correct to the letter, still petitioner’s involvement is only in respect of receiving medicines in the store and distributing the 6 same. Hence, apparently the findings of the Enquiry Officer disprove the charge of involvement of the petitioner in purchase of the medicines. On this finding, how punishment was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Director-in-Chief, Health Services is beyond the comprehension of the Court. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the order of punishment of the petitioner is subject to final result of a C.B.I. enquiry. She points out that the C.B.I. investigation was initiated in 2004, which is still pending and, therefore, no interference in the order of punishment is required at this stage. The period of irregularities in purchase of medicine is 1992-93. The C.B.I. enquiry commenced in 2004. It has not been completed in last seven years and how many more years it will remain pending, nobody can predict. In the meanwhile, petitioner has suffered by imposition of these punishments financially as well as in his service career. As discussed above, the punishment is vitiated on more than one 7 count, besides having been issued in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Clearly it has been awarded without the charge being established in the enquiry against the petitioner. In the circumstances, the order of punishment as contained in Annexure-5 dated 10.04.2004 is quashed. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, this will not prejudice the final result of C.B.I. enquiry and action proposed to be taken on the basis of the same against the petitioner. The writ application is allowed in the manner, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)