IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.747 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1820 of 2005
======================================================
1. Niru Parag, wife of late Dr. Brahamdeo Prasad Singh.
2. Premjit Kumar, Son of late Dr. Brahamdeo Prasad Singh, both resident
of village-Pani Kamala, Police Station-Manihari, District-Katihar.
.... Petitioners.... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Health
Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan,
Patna.
2. The joint Secretariat, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
4. The Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap, G.P.-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 18-10-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14 th
March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C.
No. 1820 of 2005, the heirs and legal representatives of the
original writ petitioner one Dr. Brahamdeo Prasad Singh have
preferred this Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Patna High Court LPA No.747 of 2011 (4) dt.18-10-2011
2
The above mentioned Dr. Brahamdeo Prasad Singh
(hereinafter referred to as the “delinquent”) was, at the relevant
time, Deputy Director in the Directorate of Health, State of Bihar.
A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the charge
that while serving as Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer
and Superintendent of Purnea Sadar Hospital, District- Purnea, he
had committed financial irregularity in respect of placing order of
medicines to the extent of more than Rs. 76 lacs with the medical
supply Depot, Kolkota. Pursuant to the said enquiry, the enquiry
officer made a report on 16th March 2002. According to the
enquiry officer, the imputation of charge made against the
delinquent was partially proved. The enquiry officer opined that
the delinquent received supply of medicines more than the
available allotment and incurred expenditure. Thus, he acted in
violation of Financial Rules. However, the extent of purchase
order placed by the delinquent could not be ascertained. In view of
the aforesaid finding of guilt recorded against the delinquent, by
order dated 16th September 2004 made by the State Government,
the delinquent was dismissed from service.
Feeling aggrieved, the delinquent filed above C.W.J.C. No.
1820 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pending the
writ petition the delinquent passed away. The appellants were
Patna High Court LPA No.747 of 2011 (4) dt.18-10-2011
3
substituted as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
delinquent.
Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
Therefore, the present Appeal.
Learned Advocate Mr. Jagannath Singh has appeared for
the appellants. He has strenuously urged that the order of dismissal
from service is not commensurate to the guilt proved against the
delinquent. He has submitted that since the imputation of charge
was partially proved, the delinquent could not have been visited
with the extreme penalty for dismissal from service. Mr. Singh has
also submitted that in course of enquiry, no witness was examined.
The delinquent, therefore, had no opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses.
We have perused the records. It may be noted that the
allegation against the delinquent was that of financial irregularity.
The said allegation has been proved in the departmental
proceeding. All that could not be proved was the extent of the
involvement of the delinquent or the exact amount involved. Be
that as it may, once the charge of financial irregularity was proved
against the delinquent, the only punishment that could have
justifiably been imposed upon the delinquent was dismissal from
service. As to the witnesses, unless the department had examined
Patna High Court LPA No.747 of 2011 (4) dt.18-10-2011
4
any witness, the question of offering such witness for cross-
examination by the delinquent would not arise. If at all the
delinquent so desired he could have examined the witness in his
defence. It is apparent that the delinquent also did not examine any
witness in his defence.
No other contention has been raised before us. In view of
the misconduct of financial irregularity proved against the
delinquent, the punishment of dismissal from service is wholly
justified.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
BTiwary/-