IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9318 of 2002 DR.NALINI RANJAN SINGH Son of Sri Shiv Nandan Singh, resident of Ashok Nagar, Pokharia, P.S. town and District Begusrai, presently posted as Medical Officer, Additional Primary Health Centre, Narainpur, District Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Cum Vigilance Officer Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Begusrai. 6. Sri Rameshwar Singh, IAS, Additional Secretary, Department of Finance Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ----------- 3 16.09.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the impugned order of punishment dated 15.4.2002 as contained in Annexure-7, this Court is satisfied that the same cannot be sustained only because the competent authority of the State Government had failed to comply the principles of natural justice. It is not in doubt that the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 5.11.1992 in contemplatation of the departmental proceeding and such departmental proceeding was conducted wherein the Civil Surgeon, Begusrai being the Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry report on 12.8.1994 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges with the following findings:- “mi;qZDr lk{;] c;ku vkSj iqN&rkN ds mijkUr fuEu fu"d"kZ lkeus vk;sa A 1&fnukad 23&7&92 dks vius dk;Z LFky ij ugha igqWp ikus ds lEcU/k esa fn;k x;k C;ku ,oa lk{; lgh izrhr gksrk gS A D;ksafd mlds ,d jkst iwoZ rd dk okg~; foHkkx Hkjk gqvk gS vkSj rcrd dqy ejhtksa dh la[;k& 7711 gS A ,d vfr0 izk0 Lok0 2 dsUnz ds fy, mDr vof/k rd bruk ejhtksa dh la[;k larks"kizn gS A 2&fnukad 26&8&92 dks rRdkyhu voj funs”d @izk @LokLFk; lsok,a fcgkj ds fujh{k.k ds le; vuqifLFkr ik;s tkus ,oa foyEc ls igWqpus ds lEcU/k esa Jh flag ds }kjk fn;k x;k lk{; Hkh lR; izrhr gksrk gS A blds lkFk gh fnukad 26&8&92 dks vij funs”d ds fujh{k.k ds jkst Hkh rhl ejhtksa dk igWqpuk vkSj okg~; d{k iath ds fujh{k.k ,oa iaft;u la[;k dks ns[kus ls izrhr gksrk gS fd fpfdRlk ink0 fu;fer :I ls vLirky tkrs jgs gksaxsa A 3&tgkW rd frfookn ,oa /kfV;k fdLe dh nokvksa ds forj.k djokus ds loky gS bl lEcU/k esa dguk gS fd bldk izFke nkf;Ro fpfdRlk ink0 dk ugha gksrk gS A HkaMkjiky ,oa QjekflLV }kjk Hkh ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd frfFkokn gksus dh lwpuk iz0 fp0 ink0 dks ugha nh tk ldh Fkh A @izfrosnu layXu@ iqu’p /kfV;k fdLe dh nokvksa ds forj.k ds lEcU/k esa iz0 fp0 ink0 dks nks"kh Bgjkuk mfpr ugha gksrk gS tSlk fd tkWp ink0 vij funs”d us vius fujh{k.k izfrosnu esa eUrO; fn;s gS vkSj nok ds /kfV;k gksus dk dksbZ lkcwr Hkh ugha gS A iqu’p%frfFkokn nokvksa ds forj.k esa fpfdRlk ink0 dks dksbZ O;fDxr ykHk dh laHkkouk Hkh ugha vr% tku cw> dj bl rjg dh xyrh djokus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; Hkh le> esa ugha vkrk gS A vr%mijksDr foUnqvksa ds vkyksd esa vuqjks/k fd;k tkrk gS fd Mk0 ufyuh jatu flag @v0 ”0 fp0@ fuyafcr@ iz0 fp0 ink0 HkSjokj csx0 dk fuyEcu vkns” okil fy;k tk; lkFk gh bUgsa nok HkaMkj ds ekeys esa lrdZrk cjrus gsrq lpsr Hkh dj fn;k tk; rkfd tkusvutkus esa bl rjg dh pwdh iqujkRrkoZ ugha gksus ik; A” It is not in dispute that after the said enquiry report, though the Government has taken almost eight years to take its final decision, but then it had never differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer, and yet an order of punishment and that too a major punishment was passed on 15.4.2002. 3 Time without number it has been held by the Apex Court and this Court that the Disciplinary Authority had power to differ with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, but then the delinquent has to be given show cause notice with the tentative reasons for such difference of opinion before passing the order of punishment. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ‘Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra’ reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained only on this ground alone and the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner, however, is still in service and therefore, this Court would give liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report. It would be therefore open to the authority to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner giving reasons for differing with the enquiry report, whereafter the petitioner will submit his show cause reply persuading the authority to accept the findings already arrived at in his favour by the Enquiry Officer and after considering such show cause reply of the petitioner a final order may be passed strictly in accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that as the petitioner has suffered for list 16 years, if not more, on account of withholding his salary as also the order of punishment, such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of 4 receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)