IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3673 of 2007 Dr.Manipal Chaudhary, SON OF LATE KISHORI RAM, INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE DISPENSARY, KANKARBAGH, AT PRESENT- RESIDING AT VAN VIHAR COLONY, RAMNAGARI ROAD, 10- ASHIYANA NAGAR, P.S. SHASHTRI NAGAR, TOWN & DISTRICT- PATNA :--PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, LABOUR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 2. 19.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Medical Officer with the Employees State Insurance Dispensary. He has filed this writ petition questioning the resolution of the Government bearing Memo No. 123 dated 9.5.2006, Annexure-5, Whereunder punishment of recovery of Rs. 9,629/- with 12 per cent interest, censure, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and non-holding of the charge of Drawing, Disbursing Officer for a period of ten years, has been imposed against him. 3. Aforesaid punishment has been imposed in the light of the memo of charge served on the petitioner bearing Memo No. 552 dated 7.3.2002, Annexure-1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before initiating the proceeding under charge-sheet dated 7.3.2002, Annexure-1 the Government has taken a decision to consign the allegation petition to the Record Room and 2 such decision is available in the file, extracts whereof has been annexed as Annexure-3/2. In this connection note of the Departmental Minister dated 13.12.2000, which is at page-23-24 of the brief is referred to and with reference to the said note of the Departmental Minister, it is submitted that once the Government has taken decision not to proceed with the allegation petition petitioners ought not to have been visited with the punishment pursuant to charge-sheet dated 7.3.2002, Annexure-1 under resolution dated 9.5.2006, Annexure- 5. 4. It appears in the light of the recommendation of the official in the file on 24.10.2000 and approval granted by the Hon’ble Minister of the Department on 13.12.2000 no written communication closing the allegation petition was ever served on the petitioner. In the circumstances, in my opinion petitioner is not well advised to rely on the notes made by the officials and the Hon’ble Minister of the Department at page 23-24 of the brief. Any noting in the file has no effect until the decision taken in the file is communicated to the person concerned. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)