IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5675 of 2002 Dr. Surendra Rai, Son of Sri Ram Dahin Rai, Resident of Village Simri, Post Office and Police Simri, District Buxar (Bhojpur) at present posted as Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Sokahara, Begusarai. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Health Services, Bihar. 2. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance Officer, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Civil Surgeon, Patna. 5. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 6. the then Officer-in-charge, Primary Health Centre, Mokama. --------- Respondents ----------- 5 12.07.2010 In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is directed for issuance of necessary writ or writs order/directions as nature of the case may require quashing the order of Respondent as contained in Annexure-5 whereby petitioner has been awarded with minor punishment i.e. (a) Censor (b) with holding increment of salary and (c) Deduction of 10% of Salary for the period he was kept under suspension as apparently holds bad in the eye of law.” From the materials available on record, it is more than apparent that when the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding vide memo of charge dated 22.9.1990 and was exonerated from all the five charges in view of the report of the 2 enquiry office dated 17.8.1991, the Regional Deputy Director of Health Services, Patna Division, he still was subjected to an order of punishment dated 27.4.1992 without differing at least giving notice of such difference of opinion with the enquiry officer. In fact, the order of punishment, imposing severe censor, stoppage of one increment as also stoppage of 10% of salary for the period of suspension, came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This writ application was filed on 6.5.2002 assailing the aforesaid order of punishment dated 27.4.1992 after a lapse of more than ten years of the impugned order of punishment and the only ground taken therein was that the petitioner was pursuing the remedy of appeal before the Health Commissioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner still continues in service and that the order of punishment cannot be sustained on account of inherent defect of not giving notice to the petitioner after his 3 being exonerated in the report of the enquiry officer, this Court would quash the order of punishment and direct the disciplinary authority to proceeded from the stage of submission of enquiry report. In doing so, this Court is guided by the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713. In the result, this application is allowed and the order of punishment as contained in Annexure-5 dated 27.4.1992 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Health Commissioner who now, keeping in view that the petitioner is a Principal Secretary, Health Department, a Class-II gazetted officer, would take appropriate steps for completing the remaining portion of departmental proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that any financial benefit that may be dependant on the aforesaid departmental proceeding will not be extended to the petitioner only on account of quashing of the impugned order 4 (Annexure-5) till a fresh decision is taken by the authority, which must be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)