IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14238 of 2005 JOHN DCRUTZE ANTHONY, son of late Anthony Aliphanso, resident of Mohalla-Christian Quarter, Church Road Ashisitola Bettiah, West Champaran. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary, Health Medical Education and Family Planning Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 6. Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Bettiah, West Champaran. 7. Treasury Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 8. Accountant General, A & E, Bihar and Jharkhand. ……..Respondents. ----------- 8 11.02.2011 The petitioner has challenged Annexure-1 by which the entire retiral dues of the petitioner have been stopped by the Director-in-chief, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner was working as an Accountant in the office of the Civil Surgeon, East Champaran from which post he retired in the year 1998. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner as it was alleged that he was responsible for purchase of medicines from M.S.D., Kolkata, which was not in accordance with law and in excess of the amount which was fixed for purchase of medicine. The said purchase was made between the period 1985 to 1992. The charges were framed on 23.11.1998 and after enquiry the concerned Enquiring Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not be held to be responsible for misappropriating any of the Government money on the ground that only ten requisitions could be traced to the petitioner, and the medicines were not received by the petitioner. In other words the 2 Enquiring Officer exonerated the petitioner from the charges alleged. The second show cause was issued to the petitioner in which the petitioner was asked as to why the entire pensionary benefits of the petitioner should not be withheld. The petitioner replied to the show cause stating that he had not received the money and that he had made a requisition for such medicines in accordance with the requirement. The final order was issued by Annexure-1 confirming the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Enquiring Officer had exonerated the petitioner the appellate authority ought to have given cogent reasons for differing with the enquiry, before inflicting the punishment of stoppage of the entire retiral dues which is a major punishment. A non speaking order which does not meet the findings and reasons of the Enquiry Officer, cannot be upheld by this Court. Principles of natural justice require that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the Enquiring Officer should give tentative reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report, so that the delinquent has an opportunity to convince and explain to the disciplinary authority, that the reasons stated by the disciplinary authority are not correct or can be factually explained. The principle aforesaid has been decided in the case of Punjab National Bank Versus Kunj Behari, 1998(7) Supreme Court Cases Page 84 and has been reiterated in several cases thereafter. In the result I quash the order contained in Annexure-1 issued by the Director-in-chief, Health Department vide memo 3 no.1574 dated 21.09.2005. The authorities concerned would be entitled to restart the proceeding from the stage of issuing of a second show cause, giving reasons for differing with the enquiry report if so advised. The Director-in-chief before ordering that the departmental proceeding should be reopened should take into consideration the charges are of the year 1985-92 and the findings of the enquiry report and after such application of mind, if the authority concerned feels that the petitioner was involved in the misappropriation or had given a requisition of medicine beyond the financial limitation laid down by the State government between the period 1985 to 1992, then the reopening of the proceeding may be initiated. This writ application is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations. PN ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)