IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13494 of 2005 DR.VINOD KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 18/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.2.2005 by which his services have been terminated following a departmental enquiry. The allegations in the departmental enquiry were of placing indents for supply of medicines with the M.S.D., Kolkata directly, which he was not competent to do. A reply to the memo of charges was submitted with adequate opportunity to submit his reply to the second show cause notice after completion of the enquiry was also given. This Court on going through the memo of charges, the reply of the petitioner, the enquiry report and the reply to the second show cause finds that the fact that the petitioner had placed the indents has been admitted by him. The charge has been admitted. Nothing has been placed by the petitioner before the enquiry officer or in his reply to the second show cause directly suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was duly authorized to place the indents. No allegations 2 of procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding causing prejudice to the petitioner has been demonstrably raised or placed before this Court. To that extent, this Court finds no merit in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next urged that in similar circumstances, the predecessor of the petitioner one Dr. Gopal Prasad Verma who had likewise placed indents with the M.S.D., Kolkata in violation of established procedures, after a departmental proceeding, has been let off with a punishment of warning only. That he was also a medical officer like the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11908/04 to contend that this Court in another case rejected the argument of two different kinds of punishments given in identical situation for placing of indents for M.S.D., Kolkata. Learned counsel for the petitioner retorts to submit that in that case equality in punishment was sought with that of a clerk which was refused holding that the petitioner therein was answerable as the head of the office, the District Tuberculosis Officer. 3 Presently, the petitioner and Dr. Gopal Prasad Verma were identically situated. Though this allegation has been made specifically in paragraph-34 of the writ application, the respondents have chosen not to deny it in their counter affidavit. The allegations are of procedural impropriety in placing indents for medicines. It is not the case of the respondents that fraudulent indents were placed or that medicines were not supplied. The payment in pursuance of the indents has been released by the State Government and not by the petitioner. In the entirety of the matter this Court is satisfied that the order of punishment merits interference on the quantum of punishment in light of the discussion as aforesaid. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the respondents to re-consider the issue of quantum of punishment only in light of the discussion as aforesaid. In the event that the respondents arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was differently situated from the aforesaid Dr. Gopal Prasad Verma and, therefore, notwithstanding the order in the case of the latter, the punishment of the 4 petitioner merits no interference, they shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The writ application stands allowed only to the extent indicated. Let such decision on quantum of punishment be taken within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )