IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11092 of 2008 DR.(SMT.)PUSPA SAHI, W/O DR.NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, MEDICAL OFFICER (WAITING FOR POSTING), R/O MOHALLA-BEHTA, LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHNAGA. …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. JT. SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 7. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA. 8. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER-CUM-CIVIL SURGEON, BHAGALPUR. 9. CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER-CUM-CIVIL SURGEON, SITAMARHI. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sourendra Pandey, A.C. to S.C.-23. -------------- 4 21.10.2011 Facts of the case are very short and not in dispute. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was served with the charges. Proceeding was held and inquiry report was submitted finding the petitioner not guilty of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority differs with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued a second show cause notice giving the reasons for his 2 difference with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer. On receipt of the second show casue notice, petitioner filed a reply. However, instead of taking a final decision in the proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority abandoned the same and initiated a fresh proceeding against the petitioner on the same charges. This resolution of the Government has now been brought on record as Annexure-14/1 and now the petitioner challenges this initiation of proceeding itself. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.Narendra Narain Rai Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2010 (4) PLJR 1012] in which, relying upon three judgments of the Apex Court, this Court has held that it is not open to the employer to abandon a departmental proceeding half way and initiate a fresh proceeding for the same charges. Once the proceeding is initiated against an employee, it has to be taken to its logical end in accordance with law. Though a counter affidavit has been filed in this case, but learned 3 counsel for the respondents, after going through the said judgment does not dispute the legal proposition and therefore does not dispute the invalidity of the resolution of the Government initiated fresh proceeding against the petitioner for the same charges. In the circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The resolution of the Government, as contained in memo no.836 (9) dated 17.09.2007 (Annexure-14/1), and all subsequent communications and actions taken by the respondents, are quashed. The respondents are given liberty to complete the first proceeding pending against the petitioner and take a final decision in the same in accordance with law. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)