IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3264 of 2005 DR.ARJUN PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6 16.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 26.3.2008 and 9.4.2008 on the issue of belated filing of the counter affidavit without dwelling any further on this aspect, this Court would only direct that undertaking given in the affidavit the Principal Secretary of the Health Department and the assurance given to this Court as recorded in the order dated 9.4.2008 of this case would be strictly complied and counter affidavits in all the cases of Health Department in further would be punctually filed within three months of filing of such application. Coming to the merits of this case, it would appear that a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the fact that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner as clearly stated in paragraph No.25 has not been controverted. It has also not been controverted that in respect of five of the six charges, the Disciplinary Authority 2 without issuing any notice regarding difference of opinion had passed the impugned order of punishment on the basis of all the six charges. In that view of the matter, the submission of counsel for the petitioner seems to be absolutely correct that the present case is fully covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B.Karunakar and Ors. reported in 1993(4) SCC 727 and in the case of Kunj Bihari and Ors. 1998(7) SCC 18. The submission of the counsel for the State that there was infact no requirement of the second show cause notice in terms of amendment made in Article, 311 and/or the Rule 168 of the Bihar Government Rules in the opinion of this Court is not a correct answer to the proposition on either the issue of non-supply of enquiry report or non- furnishing of the reasons for recording difference of opinion in respect of the findings in favour of the delinquent petitioner in the enquiry report. In that view of the matter the order of punishment dated 31.1.2005, Annexure-14 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for supply of the enquiry report to 3 the petitioner along with any show cause notice if the respondents also propose to differ on any of the findings recorded in the enquiry report in favour of the petitioner. After such notice along with the enquiry report is supplied to the petitioner, he would submit his explanation within a period of six weeks from receipt of the aforementioned notice also containing the enquiry report. The respondents thereafter would pass an appropriate final order and in case, the petitioner is fully exonerated from the charges, the authorities will also take a decision for his being posted as Medical Officer (Ayurvedic) in Medicine Manufacturing Department of Government Ayurvedic Medical College, Begusarai in the post which he was holding prior to his suspension. With the aforementioned observations/ directions, this application is disposed of. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)