Dr. Narendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1395 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7528 of 2020
     ======================================================

Dr. Narendra Prasad Singh Son of Late Mahendra Prasad Singh Resident of Road No. 2, Shiv Puri, Patna, Police Station- Shastri Nagar in the district of Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Additional Secretary Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate-cum- Collector Nalanda.

5. The Under Secretary Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

6. The Civil Surgeon- cum- Chief Medical Officer Nalanda.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, GA-8 Mr. Neeraj Raj, AC to GA-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-03-2021

The present writ petition has been filed for

quashing the order of punishment dated

31.10.2016 issued under the signature of the

Under Secretary, Health Department, Government

of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the

petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment

of withholding of one increment without Patna High Court CWJC No.7528 of 2020 dt.12-03-2021

cumulative effect as also withholding of salary for

the period of absence i.e. for the period

01.05.2012 to 19.08.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a

departmental proceeding was initiated vide letter

dated 08.02.2013 issued by the Under Secretary,

Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, at

the time, the petitioner was posted as Medical

Officer in the Modified leprosy control unit, Nalanda

at Biharsharif on the allegation that he has been

unauthorizedly absent and has also not joined his

duties, after his leave applications had been

rejected. The petitioner had then filed a detailed

reply, whereupon the respondent authorities vide

letter dated 29.10.2013 had decided to initiate a

departmental proceeding and had also appointed

an Inquiry Officer while enclosing the charge-sheet.

The Inquiry Officer is stated to have conducted the

inquiry proceedings and had submitted an inquiry

report dated 27.01.2014 whereby and whereunder

the petitioner was exonerated of the charges

levelled against him. The disciplinary authority had Patna High Court CWJC No.7528 of 2020 dt.12-03-2021

then vide letter dated 28.01.2016 issued a second

show cause notice to the petitioner not only

differing with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer, but

also spelling out the reasons for differing with the

report of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner had

then submitted his detailed reply vide his letter

dated 09.03.2016 to the aforesaid second show

cause notice dated 28.01.2016, however, the

disciplinary authority had passed the impugned

order dated 31.10.2016, inflicting the aforesaid

punishments upon the petitioner herein.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner had, all of a sudden,

become ill on 14.06.2012, whereafter he was

treated at Sadar Hospital Nalanda at Biharsharif,

however, the petitioner was referred for advance

treatment at Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology,

PMCH, Patna, whereupon he had submitted

application on 14.06.2012, for grant of casual

leave from 15.06.2012 to 16.06.2012, before the

Respondent No. 6 for enabling him to undergo

advance treatment at Patna. It is the case of the Patna High Court CWJC No.7528 of 2020 dt.12-03-2021

petitioner that he was treated at IGIC, Patna on

15.06.2012 and the petitioner was found suffering

from cardiac problem, hence, he was advised

complete bed-rest. The petitioner had then filed

several applications for extension of his leave

before the Respondent No. 6. In fact, the petitioner

is stated to have also suffered from Jaundice,

hence, he had submitted his application for

extension of his leave upto 21.08.2014. The

learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that a short legal issue is being raised

for the purposes of assailing the impugned

punishment order dated 31.10.2016 to the effect

that the impugned order dated 31.10.2016 is

absolutely unreasoned and does not depict either

consideration of the replies submitted by the

petitioner to the second show cause notice dated

28.01.2016 or any application of mind by the

disciplinary authority, hence, the same is fit to be

quashed on this sole ground alone.

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State

has referred to the counter affidavit and has Patna High Court CWJC No.7528 of 2020 dt.12-03-2021

submitted that there has been no irregularities in

conduct of the departmental proceeding, hence,

the order of punishment dated 31.10.2016 does

not require any interference inasmuch as this Court

would not sit in appeal over the decision of the

disciplinary authority. It is also submitted that the

petitioner was directed to mark his attendance

through biometrics system, however, the petitioner

remained absent unauthorizedly from duty as was

detected by the Civil Surgeon, Nalanda on

01.05.2012. Despite opportunity being granted by

the respondent authorities, the petitioner had

failed to join his duties, hence, a disciplinary

proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and

after due inquiry and considering the reply of the

petitioner, the impugned order of punishment

dated 31.10.2016 has been passed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and gone through the materials available

on record. A bare perusal of the impugned order of

punishment dated 31.10.2016 would show that the

same is wholly unreasoned and does not deal with Patna High Court CWJC No.7528 of 2020 dt.12-03-2021

the reply of the petitioner and moreover, no

cogent, clear and succinct reasons have been

furnished in support of the impugned order dated

31.10.2016, which is an indispensable component

of a decision making process, hence, the

impugned order dated 31.10.2016 stands vitiated,

thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the

impugned order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the

Under Secretary, Health Department, Government

of Bihar, Patna especially, in view of the said issue

being squarely covered by the principles of law laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India,

reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances

of the case and for the reasons mentioned

hereinabove, the writ petition stands allowed and

the impugned order dated 31.10.2016 passed by

the Under Secretary, Health Department,

Government of Bihar, Patna stands quashed,

however, with liberty to the disciplinary authority

to proceed, afresh in the matter in accordance with Patna High Court CWJC No.7528 of 2020 dt.12-03-2021

law from the stage of issuance of second show

cause notice.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          18.03.2021
Transmission Date       NA