{"id":207334,"date":"2011-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-02T11:58:28","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T06:28:28","slug":"dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011<\/div>\n
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                                CWJC No. 4163 of 2009\n\n\n                   DR. GAURI KANT MISHRA, S\/O LATE TARAKANT MISHRA,\n                   RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NAWANI, P.S. - GHOGHARDIHA,\n                   DISTRICT - MADHUBANI\n                                                                    ................ PETITIONER\n                                                  VERSUS\n                   1.     THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY,\n                   OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA\n                   2.     THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH MEDICAL\n                   EDUCATION, FAMILY WELFARE AND INDIGENOUS MEDICAL\n                   GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA\n                   3.     THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES,\n                   GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR\n                   4.     THE      DY.    SECRETARY,        DEPARTMENT      OF    HEALTH,\n                   GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR\n                   5.     THE REGIONAL DY. DIRECTOR FOR HEALTH SERVICES,\n                   DARBHANGA\n                   6.     THE CIVIL SURGEON, MADHUBANI\n                   7.     THE      PRINCIPAL,    DARBHANGA           MEDICAL      COLLEGE\n                   HOSPITAL\n                   8.     SHRI S. P. KESHAV, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENTAL\n                   ENQUIRY,        PERSONNEL     AND        ADMINISTRATIVE       REFORMS\n                   DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT,\n                   PATNA\n                                                            ...................... RESPONDENTS\n                                          *********\n<\/pre>\n
                   For the Petitioner:          Mr. R. K. Shukla, Adv.\n<\/p>\n
                   For the State:               Mr. S. K. Ghosh, AAG-2\n                                         **********\n\n\n\n03.   26.08.2011              This application has been filed by the petitioner for\n\n                        following reliefs:\n\n                        (i)         For    issuance    of    writ    in   the   nature   of\n\n<\/pre>\n
                                    certiorari for quashing the order, contained
\n                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
               in Memo No. 492 (9), dated 26.04.2006,<\/p>\n
               issued under the signature of Mr. Parsuram<\/p>\n
               Mishra, Dy. Secretary to the Government in<\/p>\n
               the   Department        of    Health      and    Family<\/p>\n
               Welfare,     whereby         and    whereunder        the<\/p>\n
               petitioner had been awarded punishment of<\/p>\n
               censure,      withholding          of     one    annual<\/p>\n
               increment with cumulative effect and also<\/p>\n
               that the petitioner will not get anything<\/p>\n
               except subsistence allowance, during the<\/p>\n
               suspension period.<\/p>\n
\n\n   (ii)        For issuance of an appropriate writ in the\n\n               nature       of     mandamus,             directing     \/\n\n<\/pre>\n
               commanding the concerned respondents to<\/p>\n
               make payment of due amount and further to<\/p>\n
               give all consequential relief(s).\n<\/p>\n
   (iii)       For issuance of any other appropriate writ \/<\/p>\n
               writs, giving direction \/ directions, passing<\/p>\n
               order \/ orders for which the petitioner may<\/p>\n
               be    found       entitled    in    the     facts     and<\/p>\n
               circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
          The reliefs, for which the petitioner has prayed in<\/p>\n
this Writ Application is indicative of the fact that he is<\/p>\n
aggrieved on account of punishment, awarded in a
\n                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
departmental proceeding, whereby one increment has<\/p>\n
been withheld with cumulative effect, punishment of<\/p>\n
censure has been awarded and except subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance, he will not be entitled for any monitory<\/p>\n
benefit during the suspension period.\n<\/p>\n
        Petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer on<\/p>\n
19.03.1988 under the Health Department at Addl.<\/p>\n
Primary Health Centre, Pabia. Subsequently, he was<\/p>\n
transferred to Referral Hospital, Andhara Thadi in the<\/p>\n
district of Madhubani in the year 1992. Prior to the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s joining, one Dr. Suresh Jha, was posted as<\/p>\n
Medical    Officer,   Incharge-Referral     Hospital,     Andhra-<\/p>\n
Thadi, Madhubani. In the year 1991, he had given order<\/p>\n
by issuing indent for purchase of 10 medicine items, to<\/p>\n
Medical Store Depot, Calcutta (MSD, Calcutta), vide<\/p>\n
Memo No. 69, dated 09.06.1991. Petitioner took charge,<\/p>\n
as Incharge, Medical Officer, Referral Hospital, Andhara<\/p>\n
Thari in the district of Madhubani, vide Memo No. 1336,<\/p>\n
dated     11.06.1992.     In   the   year   1997,   the    Health<\/p>\n
Department sought for options from the Doctors as to<\/p>\n
whether they want to join Bihar Medical Education<\/p>\n
Service Cadre or Bihar State Health Services Cadre. This<\/p>\n
option was invited in the light of the decision taken by<\/p>\n
the State Government in the year 1987, whereby Cadre
\n                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
of Health Services and Bihar Medical Education Services<\/p>\n
were separated from each other. Petitioner gave his<\/p>\n
option for Bihar Medical Education Service Cadre, which<\/p>\n
was accepted and he became Tutor in the Department of<\/p>\n
Anatomy,       Darbhanga            Medical    College    Hospital,<\/p>\n
Laheriasarai. He joined there on 07.01.1998. In the year<\/p>\n
2001, petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant<\/p>\n
Professor. Petitioner was served with a letter dated<\/p>\n
05.11.2003, issued under the signature of Shri B. B.<\/p>\n
Pandey, Deputy Secretary to the Government in the<\/p>\n
Health,      Medical       Education     and     Family      Welfare<\/p>\n
Department, whereby he was asked to submit his show-<\/p>\n
cause with regard to the charge of purchasing medicines<\/p>\n
from MSD, Calcutta, in excess of the budget allocation.<\/p>\n
Petitioner    submitted       his    show-cause,    controverting<\/p>\n
allegations leveled against him and requested to drop<\/p>\n
the proceeding. A notification, contained in Memo No.<\/p>\n
473 (9), dated 12.04.2004 was issued under the<\/p>\n
signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government,<\/p>\n
Health,      Medical       Education     and     Family      Welfare<\/p>\n
Department,      whereby       petitioner     was   placed    under<\/p>\n
suspension, and his services were taken back from<\/p>\n
Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare with<\/p>\n
immediate effect. Petitioner’s head-office was fixed in
\n                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
the office of Regional Deputy Director, Health Services,<\/p>\n
Darbhanga. The Department of Medical Education and<\/p>\n
Family   Welfare   resolved   to   start   a   departmental<\/p>\n
proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 55 of the<\/p>\n
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules<\/p>\n
and the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner was made<\/p>\n
Conducting Officer. The memo of charge was served<\/p>\n
upon the petitioner, which indicated that the petitioner,<\/p>\n
while posted as Incharge Medical Officer at Referral<\/p>\n
Hospital, Andhara Thari, Madhubani has misappropriated<\/p>\n
Government money in violation of Health Department’s<\/p>\n
letter no. 176(10), dated 27.01.1982 by issuing voucher<\/p>\n
no. 258\/8\/92 in favour of MSD, Calcutta for purchasing<\/p>\n
medicine, beyond the budgetary allocated fund for the<\/p>\n
same. Along with the memorandum of charge, list of<\/p>\n
evidence was also furnished, which were, (i) letter no.<\/p>\n
243, dated 04.04.1997, issued by MSD, Calcutta; (ii)<\/p>\n
letter no. 176(10), dated 27.01.1982; and (iii) letter no.<\/p>\n
2901, dated 26.12.2001, issued by the Civil Surgeon,<\/p>\n
Madhubani, but these documents were not supplied to<\/p>\n
the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      The Petitioner challenged his suspension order by<\/p>\n
filing C.W.J.C. No. 16332 of 2004. The suspension order<\/p>\n
was challenged on the ground that there is no progress
\n                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
in the departmental proceeding and he has not been<\/p>\n
paid even subsistence allowance. The charges, which<\/p>\n
have been framed against the petitioner regarding the<\/p>\n
purchase order, issued to MSD, Calcutta had never been<\/p>\n
issued by him, but by his predecessor Dr. Suresh Jha.<\/p>\n
The Writ Application was disposed of directing the<\/p>\n
respondents to expedite the departmental enquiry and<\/p>\n
conclude it within a period of four months from the date<\/p>\n
of production \/ communication of the order. In case the<\/p>\n
proceeding is not concluded within the said period,<\/p>\n
suspension would stand revoked. The Commissioner<\/p>\n
Departmental       Enquiry,      Conducting         Officer     of   the<\/p>\n
departmental       proceeding,         thereafter      issued    letter,<\/p>\n
contained in Memo No. 498, dated 07.09.2005, asking<\/p>\n
the   petitioner    to    participate      in    the    departmental<\/p>\n
proceeding on 15.09.2005 at 11.25 a.m.<\/p>\n
        Petitioner’s case is that the letter, informing him<\/p>\n
about    the   date      fixed   for    his     appearance      in   the<\/p>\n
Departmental Proceeding, itself, was issued from Patna<\/p>\n
on 21.09.2005. In support of which he has annexed the<\/p>\n
envelope, which contains the seal of Postal Department.<\/p>\n
Petitioner could not appear on that date. However,<\/p>\n
subsequently, when he came to know about the date, he<\/p>\n
sent a letter that some time may be allowed to him for
\n                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
appearing in the departmental proceeding, as he was<\/p>\n
suffering from Diabetes and Typhoid. Another letter was<\/p>\n
issued by the Conducting Officer, fixing 27.09.2005 for<\/p>\n
appearance      of    the   petitioner   in    the   departmental<\/p>\n
proceeding. This letter was also received after expiry of<\/p>\n
the date by the petitioner, but he came to know about<\/p>\n
the date through other sources. Petitioner’s case is that<\/p>\n
he   appeared         before   the     Conducting      Officer    on<\/p>\n
27.09.2005, filed his attendance in writing, but he was<\/p>\n
marked absent, stating that order has already been<\/p>\n
passed. The next date was fixed in the departmental<\/p>\n
proceeding was 03.10.2005, and the letter containing<\/p>\n
the date of departmental proceeding, was delivered to<\/p>\n
the petitioner on 07.10.2005. The letter contained in<\/p>\n
Memo No. 571, dated 03.10.2005 was dispatched from<\/p>\n
the Post Office on 05.10.2005 and delivered to the<\/p>\n
petitioner on 16.10.2005, that is, after the date fixed for<\/p>\n
hearing   in    the    departmental      proceeding.        However,<\/p>\n
petitioner     was     informed      about    the    date    by   his<\/p>\n
representative and on 07.10.2005, petitioner reached<\/p>\n
the office of Conducting Officer, awaited till 02.30 p.m.,<\/p>\n
but in stead of giving him any opportunity of hearing, he<\/p>\n
was marked absent and the matter was reserved for<\/p>\n
order. Petitioner was informed that enquiry report will be
\n                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
sent to the Administrative Department and it will also be<\/p>\n
sent to the petitioner. Petitioner made written request to<\/p>\n
the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner to provide him<\/p>\n
an opportunity, so that he may explain his position, but<\/p>\n
that was not provided to him. Since the petitioner was<\/p>\n
not allowed any opportunity to place his defence before<\/p>\n
the Conducting Officer, the departmental proceeding was<\/p>\n
concluded ex-parte. Petitioner received enquiry report,<\/p>\n
which was much beyond the four months’ time, fixed by<\/p>\n
the    High    Court       for   concluding   the   departmental<\/p>\n
proceeding, as such he filed his application before the<\/p>\n
Principal,     Darbhanga          Medical     College    Hospital,<\/p>\n
Laheriasarai for acceptance of his joining. The Principal,<\/p>\n
DMCH wrote letter to the Secretary, Health, Medical<\/p>\n
Education and Family Welfare for a guideline regarding<\/p>\n
acceptance of joining.\n<\/p>\n
       In the meantime, the petitioner received letter no.<\/p>\n
1580 (9) dated 11.11.2008, issued under the signature<\/p>\n
of    Deputy    Secretary        to   the   Government    in   the<\/p>\n
Department of Health and Family Welfare, asking the<\/p>\n
petitioner to submit his second show-cause, in view of<\/p>\n
the enquiry report submitted by the Conducting Officer,<\/p>\n
in which the charges leveled against the petitioner has<\/p>\n
partially been proved. Ten days’ time was allowed for
\n                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
filing second show-cause, otherwise the final order will<\/p>\n
be passed. Petitioner submitted his second show-cause,<\/p>\n
stating that the Conducting Officer did not provide him<\/p>\n
any opportunity for furnishing his defence. It was also<\/p>\n
submitted by the petitioner that only charge framed<\/p>\n
against the petitioner was with respect to issuance of<\/p>\n
indent to MSD, Calcutta for purchasing medicine. In the<\/p>\n
enquiry report, the Conducting Officer has recorded a<\/p>\n
finding that petitioner has never issued any indent in<\/p>\n
favour of MSD, Calcutta for purchasing medicine, since<\/p>\n
no other charge was framed against the petitioner, as<\/p>\n
such the finding recorded by the Conducting Officer that<\/p>\n
charge has partially been proved, is baseless. The<\/p>\n
Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, in capacity of<\/p>\n
the Disciplinary Officer without considering the show-<\/p>\n
cause filed by the petitioner, awarded punishment of<\/p>\n
censure and stoppage of one annual increment with<\/p>\n
cumulative effect as well as for non payment of salary<\/p>\n
for the period of suspension, vide order contained in<\/p>\n
Memo No. 492 (9), dated 26.04.2006. An appeal was<\/p>\n
preferred by the petitioner before Joint Secretary to the<\/p>\n
Government in the Department of Health, but that was<\/p>\n
also dismissed without considering his case.<\/p>\n
     The order passed by the Appellate Authority,
\n                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
affirming   the   punishment   order,    awarded   by   the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary Authority, as well as the order passed by the<\/p>\n
Disciplinary   Authority   has been     challenged by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner on the ground that petitioner has always been<\/p>\n
denied an opportunity of being heard, which is supported<\/p>\n
by the documentary evidence on record. He was never<\/p>\n
intimated in time with regard to the date of hearing in<\/p>\n
the departmental proceeding, due to which he could not<\/p>\n
appear before the Conducting Officer on one occasion.<\/p>\n
On other two occasions, against all odds, he appeared<\/p>\n
before the Conducting Officer, but deliberately he was<\/p>\n
marked absent. This only shows the motive of the<\/p>\n
Conducting Officer, which is apparent from his decision<\/p>\n
to proceed in the departmental proceeding ex-parte.<\/p>\n
      Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
State, in which there is no denial to this fact, but it has<\/p>\n
been stated that petitioner intentionally did not want to<\/p>\n
participate in the departmental proceeding. He was<\/p>\n
interested in delaying the conclusion of the departmental<\/p>\n
proceeding, so that the direction of the High Court<\/p>\n
regarding revocation of suspension can be effective.<\/p>\n
However, the document, which has been annexed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in support of this contention, like, letters<\/p>\n
issued by the Conducting Officer, informing the date for
\n                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
appearance     in   the   departmental    proceeding,      being<\/p>\n
dispatched after the expiry of the date. Petitioner having<\/p>\n
received all these letters subsequent to the date fixed<\/p>\n
for his appearance, have not been denied in the Counter<\/p>\n
Affidavit. Petitioner has also annexed documents to<\/p>\n
show that on two occasions, when he came to know<\/p>\n
about the date fixed from other sources, he appeared<\/p>\n
before   the    Conducting     Officer,   filed    his    written<\/p>\n
attendance, but he was marked absent, on this pretext<\/p>\n
that he appeared after the time fixed for his appearance.<\/p>\n
      One thing is apparent that petitioner was not given<\/p>\n
opportunity to look into the documents, to examine or<\/p>\n
cross-examined      witnesses.    Even    in      the    ex-parte<\/p>\n
proceeding, not a single witness was examined by the<\/p>\n
Department in support of the charge. The Conducting<\/p>\n
Officer presumed that charge has partially been proved<\/p>\n
merely on the basis of charge-sheet.\n<\/p>\n
      The one and only charge, which was framed<\/p>\n
against the petitioner in the memo of charge, related to<\/p>\n
issuance of a voucher in favour of MSD, Calcutta for<\/p>\n
purchasing medicine, going against the guidelines of the<\/p>\n
State Government and beyond the limit of fund allocated<\/p>\n
for purchasing the same. The Conducting Officer himself<\/p>\n
has recorded finding that only indent of the year 1991,
\n                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
had   been     issued      by   Dr.   Suresh   Jha,     petitioner’s<\/p>\n
predecessor in office. So far petitioner is concerned, he<\/p>\n
never had issued any indent for purchasing medicine.<\/p>\n
Petitioner joined in the year 1992 and two of the<\/p>\n
medicines, for which orders had already been placed by<\/p>\n
Dr. Suresh Jha were delivered at Referral Hospital. So<\/p>\n
far the distribution of medicine is concerned, for that no<\/p>\n
charge had been framed against the petitioner. In<\/p>\n
absence   of    any     such     charge,   petitioner     was   not<\/p>\n
supposed to place his defence with regard to the<\/p>\n
distribution. Petitioner is not supposed to face any<\/p>\n
proceeding with respect to the charge, which had not<\/p>\n
been framed against him. The only charge framed, if not<\/p>\n
found proved, the report submitted by the Conducting<\/p>\n
Officer regarding charges being proved partially is<\/p>\n
arbitrary, illegal and non-existent.\n<\/p>\n
      Counsel for the petitioner has brought on record a<\/p>\n
copy of judgment passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11488 of 2005,<\/p>\n
i.e., the Writ Application filed by Dr. Suresh Jha,<\/p>\n
petitioner’s predecessor in office. He filed C.W.J.C. No.<\/p>\n
11488 of 2005, challenging dismissal order passed<\/p>\n
against him in a departmental proceeding. The charge<\/p>\n
dated 12.06.2004 framed against him, was that in the<\/p>\n
year 1991, while holding the post of Incharge Medical
\n                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
Officer, Referral Hospital, Andhara Thari in the district of<\/p>\n
Madhubani, he had issued indent in favour of MSD,<\/p>\n
Calcutta, in violation of the Health Department’s letter<\/p>\n
no. 176(10), dated 27.02.1982 and the financial rules as<\/p>\n
well as beyond the limit of fund allocated for that. The<\/p>\n
Writ Application was allowed. The order of punishment<\/p>\n
was quashed on the ground that the charges were not<\/p>\n
found to be proved. The order passed in the Writ<\/p>\n
Application was challenged by the State by filing L.P.A.<\/p>\n
No. 965 of 2008 and that has been also dismissed.<\/p>\n
      Counsel for the petitioner submits that considering<\/p>\n
the fact that the charge framed against Dr. Suresh Jha<\/p>\n
with regard to issuance of indent to MSD, Calcutta is not<\/p>\n
found to be proved by the Writ Court, there is nothing<\/p>\n
against the petitioner for which he could have been<\/p>\n
awarded punishment of censure, withholding of one<\/p>\n
increment with cumulative effect and non-payment of<\/p>\n
salary and other monitory benefits, except subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance, during the period of suspension.<\/p>\n
      In the Counter Affidavit it has been stated that the<\/p>\n
Conducting    Officer   after   considering   all   relevant<\/p>\n
materials found charges framed against the petitioner<\/p>\n
partially proved and awarded minor penalty of censure<\/p>\n
and stopping of one increment with cumulative effect as
\n                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
well   as non-payment of salary except subsistence<\/p>\n
allowance for the period of suspension. In the Counter<\/p>\n
Affidavit there is no statement that any additional<\/p>\n
charge had been framed against the petitioner, except<\/p>\n
the charge framed vide letter dated 26.04.2002.<\/p>\n
       On   perusal    of    the   enquiry       report, I fail    to<\/p>\n
understand which of the charge leveled against the<\/p>\n
petitioner was partially found to be proved, if only<\/p>\n
charge framed against him was found by the Conducting<\/p>\n
Officer as not proved. The Conducting Officer has not<\/p>\n
understood the scope of the departmental proceeding,<\/p>\n
while he recorded a finding that charge has partially<\/p>\n
been proved. The Conducting Officer could not have<\/p>\n
traveled    beyond     the    charge    framed        against     the<\/p>\n
petitioner. When only one charge was framed against<\/p>\n
the petitioner, the Conducting Officer could not have<\/p>\n
presumed that petitioner has to defend himself against<\/p>\n
any other allegation, and punishment can be awarded<\/p>\n
against     non-existing     allegation.     I     find   that    the<\/p>\n
punishment awarded to the petitioner vide impugned<\/p>\n
order dated 26.04.2006, contained in Memo No. 492 (9)<\/p>\n
and the appellate order, affirming the order passed by<\/p>\n
the Disciplinary Authority are fit to be quashed for the<\/p>\n
reason that the departmental proceeding has not been
\n                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
      conducted following the procedure. The petitioner was<\/p>\n
      not afforded any opportunity to place his defence and<\/p>\n
      the ex-parte proceeding was concluded even without<\/p>\n
      examining a single witness to prove the charge. The<\/p>\n
      single charge framed against the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
      proved, despite the fact punishment has been awarded<\/p>\n
      against the petitioner for non-existing charge partially<\/p>\n
      been proved. For all these reasons, the impugned orders<\/p>\n
      are quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the<\/p>\n
      petitioner on the post on which he was working before<\/p>\n
      initiation   of   the    departmental   proceeding   with   all<\/p>\n
      consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    (Mridula Mishra, J.)
\nSKM\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 4163 of 2009 DR. GAURI KANT MISHRA, S\/O LATE TARAKANT MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – NAWANI, P.S. – GHOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT – MADHUBANI ……………. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-207334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T06:28:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T06:28:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2607,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T06:28:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T06:28:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T06:28:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011"},"wordCount":2607,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011","name":"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T06:28:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-gauri-kant-mishra-vs-the-state-of-bihar-ors-on-26-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Gauri Kant Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 26 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=207334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}