High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Dr.Amrendra Kumar ‘Aman’ vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 2 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Dr.Amrendra Kumar ‘Aman’ vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 2 December, 2010
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                         CWJC NO.9283 OF 2004
DR.AMRENDRA KUMAR 'AMAN', SON OF SHRI L.C.RAM, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE BARAWA, POLICE STATION ASAW, DISTRICT SIWAN. AT PRESENT
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MUNGER.PETITIONER
                                VERSUS
   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
   2. THE SECRETRY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, MEDICAL EDUCATION
      AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
   3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL
      EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
      BIHAR, PATNA
   4. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH, MEDICAL
      EDUCATION AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
      BIHAR, PATNA
   5. THE CIVIL SURGEON -CUM- CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, MUNGER
   .......................................................................................RESPONDENTS
                               ***********

FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. DINU KUMAR, ADVOCATE
MR. BINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE
FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. NIRMAL KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE
*********
3 02/12/2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders as

contained in Annexure-5 and Annexure-11 to the writ

application. By Annexure-5 dated 04.07.2003, the

petitioner has been awarded punishment of censure

whereas by Annexure-11, the petitioner has not only

been awarded punishment of censure but it has also

been observed that the petitioner would not be entitled to

the payment of salary or allowances except subsistence

allowance for the period under suspension. The petitioner

was put under suspension primarily for the reason that

he did not attend the meeting which was held by the

District Magistrate on 15.11.1999 & 25.11.1999. Later, a

departmental proceeding was initiated against the

petitioner and charge sheet was submitted against the
2

petitioner on 14.11.2001. The petitioner has filed his

show cause which is contained in Annexure-4, which has

led to the impugned orders.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the

enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and thus,

the petitioner had no way of knowing the materials that

have come against him in the departmental proceeding. It

is well settled law that the copy of the enquiry report

ought to be served upon the incumbent who is facing the

disciplinary proceeding. In any event, the Under

Secretary of the Government has passed an order of

censure after considering the enquiry report. The order

which is contained in Annexure-5 can hardly be called an

‘order’ as it does not disclose a single line showing

application of mind of the concerned authority. The order

merely states that after considering the enquiry report,

the petitioner is awarded the punishment of censure.

After the order of censure, issued on 04.07.2003, the

petitioner filed a representation (Annexure-6) to the

Commissioner -cum- Secretary, Health Department

which was reiterated by Annexure-7 and Annexure-10,

praying therein that he should be exonerated from the

punishment of censure. While disposing of the aforesaid

representation filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner –

cum- Secretary not only confirmed the punishment of
3

censure, but in addition also ruled that the petitioner

would not be entitled to payment of salary or allowances

except subsistence allowance for the period under

suspension.

This Court has already held that Annexure-5 is

a non-speaking order and can hardly be justified but the

order contained in Annexure-11 is beyond the principles

underlying departmental proceeding jurisprudence. It is

unimaginable that the authority should inflict the

punishment for unknown reasons or merely because the

incumbent concerned had asked for payment of salary

during the suspension period. It is unheard of and

cannot be sustained for any reason whatsoever.

In the result, I quash Annexure-5 on the

ground that it is a non-speaking order and Annexure-11

for the reasons mentioned aforesaid.

The department concerned may initiate fresh

proceedings from the stage of holding a fresh enquiry into

the matter if it thinks fit and proper, keeping in mind

that the occurrence took place in the year 1999 and

charges were framed in the year 2001.

This application is allowed to the extent

aforesaid.

Anand                                            ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )