IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6480 of 2004 Smt. Sakro Tuddu, wife of Dr. Badal Murmu, Resident of Village Basila Kanchanpur, P.S. Pokata, District East Singhbhum, at present residing at Anpurna Kutir, Dhanraj Singh Lane, Mohanpur, Punaichak, P.S. Sastrinagar, District Patna. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner/Secretary Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Dr. (Captain) Anil Kumar, Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna cum conducting officer. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, North Chhota Nagpur, Division, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). 5. The Deputy Secretary, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. Under Secretary, Department of Health, Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 4 15.11.2010 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsels for the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand are present. The following prayer of the petitioner in this writ application:- “1(A) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification vide Memo No. 392(9) dated 2.4.2004 (contained in Annexure-12), issued by Deputy Secretary (Respondent no.5) by he has deducted 10% of Pension of the petitioner and with-held the salary during his suspension period except subsistence allowance and further for quashing of enquiry report contained in letter no.51 dated 30.8.2002 (Annexure-9) issued by Dr. (Captain) Anil Kumar 2 (respondent no.3) by which he held guilty to the petitioner for charge no.2, 3 & 5 and the petitioner may be exonerated from all the charges for which she has been said to be guilty. (B) Respondents may be directed to pay full pension to the petitioner as well as arrears of salary of the petitioner of the suspension period.” cannot be allowed in view of the fact that in a duly conducted departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer has found the conduct of the petitioner, as with regard to neglect in her official duty in capacity of Civil Surgeon as also exceeding her financial power in purchase of medicine, to be deliberate. The charges framed against the petitioner, thus, having been proved, the consequential order of punishment to the extent of stoppage of 10% of pension or withholding the salary beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension only i.e. for the period 29.9.2000 to 31.12.2000, would require no interference specially when not a word has been said as with regard to any procedural infirmity in course of enquiry, which could have prejudiced the petitioner. From reading 3 of the enquiry report, it becomes clear that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend herself and in fact, her own such defence was also taken into consideration by the enquiry officer while submitting the enquiry report. Accordingly, this application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)