IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.14474 OF 2005 DR.RAJ KUMAR CHAUDHARY, SON OF SHRI RAGHUNANDAN CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST MOTIA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT GODDA (JHARKHAND) …………………………………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY CUM DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, PATNA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, MUNGER 6. THE CIVIL SURGEON, LAKHISARAI 7. THE INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER, BARAHIYA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI ………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** 3 14/02/2011 This application has been filed for quashing Annexure-12 by which the petitioner has been awarded three punishments, namely, warning, stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and non- payment of salary during the suspension period. The appeallate order as contained in Annexure-14 confirms the order of punishment. The short facts are that on 14.05.2003, the Minister made a surprise visit to the Primary Health Centre, Barahiya and found that the petitioner who was the doctor, was absent from the Primary Health Centre. Accordingly, charges were framed and the petitioner faced the departmental proceeding. In reply to the show 2 cause issued to the petitioner, it has been stated by the petitioner that he had gone to Lakhisarai with the permission of the Incharge Medical Officer for the purpose of removing the objections raised by the Treasury concerning his salary bills for the months of March and April, 2003. The said application along with certain other documents, such as certain prescriptions showing that the petitioner remained present regularly at the Primary Health Centre, house rent receipts were produced before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer vide his findings contained in Annexure-10 relying on the documents produced by the petitioner, exonerated him from being absent from the Primary Health Centre on 14.05.2003 and also exonerated him from the charge that the petitioner was a habitual offender and was very often absent from duty. The petitioner was thereafter issued a second show cause notice. The second show cause notice indicates that the authorities concerned asked the petitioner to produce documents showing that he was absent due to his daughter’s marriage. This notice was later on corrected by issuance of a third show cause to the petitioner along with the enquiry report. The petitioner replied to the show cause, reiterating all the facts and stating that it is true that he was not present at 3 the Primary Health Centre at Barahiya on the date the Minister visited the Primary Health Centre but he had filed an application for permission to leave the headquarters and gave information to the Incharge Medical Officer. All these aspects of the matter have not at all been discussed or considered in the impugned orders contained in Annexure-12 and 14. The orders have been issued showing complete non-application of mind and no reasons have been stated for disbelieving the statements of the petitioner. It is not a case where the Incharge Medical Officer had been examined or that he denies that any application was filed by the petitioner on 14.04.2003, which would indicate that the petitioner was absent from duty without taking the permission of the concerned authority, which may have justified the issuance of Annesxure-12, rather there is evidence to show that the petitioner had a genuine reason to be absent from the Primary Health Centre. I, therefore, quash the orders contained in Annexure 12 and 14. The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits as a result of quashing of Annexure-12. This application is accordingly allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )