IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17773 of 2009 1. SAJIWAN PRASAD SHARMA S/O LATE SURAJDEO SINGH R/O MOH- CHHOTKI NAWADA, P.O. BAIRAGI, P.S. DELHA, DISTT. GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR 3. THE DY. DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER GAYA 5. THE INCHARGE, MEDICAL OFFICER ADDL. PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KURWAN, DISTT. GAYA ----------- 2/ 15.04.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. This case has a chequered history. Earlier, the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 3789 of 1996 challenging the final order of punishment in a departmental proceeding, whereby the petitioner had been dismissed from the service. In the earlier writ application, the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the major punishment of dismissal awarded to him in the departmental proceeding. The matter remained pending for several years. In the year 2003 several cases relating to termination from service were taken up for analogous hearing and by mistake, petitioner’s writ application was also tagged without considering that issue involved in the writ application, is completely different from the issue involved in L.P.A. No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases. By a common order all matters were disposed of giving direction to Five Men Committee to look into the legality of the appointment of petitioner. When the petitioner’s case was placed before the - 2 - Five Men Committee, their noting was that the issue involved in this case is beyond the purview of the consideration of the Five Men Committee. Rightly such noting was given by the Five Men Committee. In the case of the petitioner, legality of his appointment was not an issue but he had challenged the final order passed in the departmental proceeding, whereby he had been dismissed from the service. At this juncture, left with no option, the petitioner again has come before this Court and filed this writ application, challenging the same dismissal order passed in the departmental proceeding, which was subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 3789 of 1996. Petitioner has challenged this order of dismissal passed in the departmental proceeding on that ground that before awarding major punishment of dismissal from service, the respondent authorities never issued any show cause notice to him, asking his explanation against the proposed punishment. In this view of the matter, the punishment of dismissal, awarded to the petitioner in violation of rule of natural justice. In the counter affidavit, there is an admission regarding non-issuance of second show cause notice to the petitioner against the proposed punishment. Considering the fact that dismissal from service is a severe punishment which can be imposed against a government employee only after - 3 - observing all procedure required to be followed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The authorities before passing such an order are required to take all necessary precautions and comply with all necessary procedures required to be followed for passing a major punishment like dismissal from service. Since, it was not done and the petitioner has been dismissed from service, it needs interference. The impugned order is being set aside. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has still not reached the age of superannuation, the respondent authorities are directed to re-instate him. Re-initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, form the stage of second show cause notice. Second show cause notice be issued to the petitioner against the proposed punishment, giving him opportunity to file show cause. The respondent authorities shall thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and pass final order in the departmental proceeding. All these exercise must be completed within six months from the date of production/communication of this order. In the meantime, the petitioner will be re-instated. He will be paid subsistence allowance, till the date final order is passed. The petitioner will also be paid his subsistence allowance for the period he remained under dismissal on account of final order passed, on earlier occasion by the respondent No. 4, challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 3789 of 1996. - 4 - Impugned order of dismissal dated 11.03.1996 (Annexure-8) is quashed. This application is allowed with these observations. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)