IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54925 of 2007 DR. PRAHLAD SINGH S/O LATE VISHWANATH SINGH AT PRESENT POSTED AS MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, REFERAL HOSPITAL, MOHINA, P.S.-MOHINA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR. …………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, PARIWAR KALYAN BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA, BIHAR. 4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, MOHINA, KAIMUR. ...............Opposite Parties. ----------- 08 17.03.2011 The petitioner has been made accused in a case under Section 168 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 16 of the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices, Act (for short the ‘Act’). The allegation in the First Information Report is that the petitioner has been absenting himself from duty and is indulging in private practice. A complaint was made by the Executive Director of the State Health Society Pariwar Kalyan Bhawan, Sheikhpura, Patna to the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate wrote to the civil surgeon to institute a case, which was done without any enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absence from duty can be a ground for taking action in a departmental proceeding, however, absence from duty by itself does not constitute a criminal offence, unless it is shown that by virtue of being absence from duty without any permission, some untoward incident takes place which may result in loss of life of an employee or any other person. In the present case, there is no such allegation. Cognizance has also been taken under Section 16 of the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. Section 16 2 of the Act envisages that any medical officer or his subordinate neglects the patient of deliberately does not attend the patient during duty hours is to be punished with the fine and the imprisonment of one year. As stated earlier there is no material to indicate that the petitioner was in fact absent from duty or that his absence was unauthorized or that he did not attend to the patients. The said authorities could have conducted an enquiry and moved departmentally to institute a departmental proceedings against him, however, the offences made out in the First Information Report do not disclose any criminal offence. In the result, the order taking cognizance dated 04.04.2007 passed in Mohania P.S. Case No. 83 of 2007 is quashed. Safik (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)