IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3673 of 2007
Dr.Manipal Chaudhary, SON OF LATE KISHORI RAM, INSURANCE
MEDICAL OFFICER, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE DISPENSARY,
KANKARBAGH, AT PRESENT- RESIDING AT VAN VIHAR COLONY,
RAMNAGARI ROAD, 10- ASHIYANA NAGAR, P.S. SHASHTRI NAGAR,
TOWN & DISTRICT- PATNA :--PETITIONER.
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, LABOUR
EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA.
3. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR,
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA.
4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT &
TRAINING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA :---RESPONDENTS.
----------------------------------
2. 19.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
2. At the relevant time petitioner served as
Medical Officer with the Employees State Insurance
Dispensary. He has filed this writ petition questioning
the resolution of the Government bearing Memo No. 123
dated 9.5.2006, Annexure-5, Whereunder punishment of
recovery of Rs. 9,629/- with 12 per cent interest,
censure, stoppage of three increments with cumulative
effect and non-holding of the charge of Drawing,
Disbursing Officer for a period of ten years, has been
imposed against him.
3. Aforesaid punishment has been imposed in
the light of the memo of charge served on the petitioner
bearing Memo No. 552 dated 7.3.2002, Annexure-1. It is
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before initiating
the proceeding under charge-sheet dated 7.3.2002,
Annexure-1 the Government has taken a decision to
consign the allegation petition to the Record Room and
2
such decision is available in the file, extracts whereof has
been annexed as Annexure-3/2. In this connection note
of the Departmental Minister dated 13.12.2000, which is
at page-23-24 of the brief is referred to and with
reference to the said note of the Departmental Minister, it
is submitted that once the Government has taken
decision not to proceed with the allegation petition
petitioners ought not to have been visited with the
punishment pursuant to charge-sheet dated 7.3.2002,
Annexure-1 under resolution dated 9.5.2006, Annexure-
5.
4. It appears in the light of the recommendation
of the official in the file on 24.10.2000 and approval
granted by the Hon’ble Minister of the Department on
13.12.2000 no written communication closing the
allegation petition was ever served on the petitioner. In
the circumstances, in my opinion petitioner is not well
advised to rely on the notes made by the officials and the
Hon’ble Minister of the Department at page 23-24 of the
brief. Any noting in the file has no effect until the
decision taken in the file is communicated to the person
concerned. In such view of the matter, I do not find any
merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed.
P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)