IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C No.14164 of 2006 DR.NATHU PRASAD MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O SHRI FATRI PRASAD AT PRESENT POSTED AS MANIHARI, KATIHAR IN PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MANIHARI, KATIHAR …………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SERCRETARY, HEALTH AND PUBLIC WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT. 3.CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, KATIHAR,. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------------- 03/ 07.07.2011 Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the enclosures of Annexure-1 and the same is taken on record. No one appears on behalf of State. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 10.07.2005 (Annexure-7) inflicting the petitioner with certain punishment, Mr. Kumar has submitted that the impugned order of punishment does not disclose any reason much less application of mind on the show cause reply filed by the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the submission of Mr. Kumar has to be accepted, inasmuch as, even if the punishment inflicted on the petitioner are minor in nature, he would still be entitled for 2 consideration of defence taken by him in the show cause reply. From the letter of the Deputy Secretary of the Health Department dated 28.06.2004, it would appear that on some complaint of a local M.L.A, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation and the petitioner had submitted such explanation on 04.09.2004 vide Annexure- 5 giving full details, wherein, he had not only denied the allegations made by the local M.L.A, but had also sought to supplement his defence by placing reliance on the communication of the Civil Surgeon as with regard to not paying the salary of one of his subordinate Doctor Rakesh Chandra Sahay Verma. The impugned order, however, does not deal with the said show cause reply and has straightway proceeded to record order of punishment in the form of censure, stoppage of increment, recording of severe warning as also withdrawal of the power of the drawing and disbursing Authority. Such order being a bald and non speaking order cannot be approved as was held by the Apex Court in the case of S.N Mukherjee vs The Union of India, reported in 1990 SCC 1984. 3 That being so, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department who would now pass a fresh order in the light of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)