← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/8370/2017allowed

Dr. Raghvendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-11Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8370 of 2017 ====================================================== Dr. Raghvendra Kumar, Son of Late Parmeshwar Narain Singh, resident of Village Morsand, P.S. Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

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

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

4. The Deputy Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Civil Surgeon, Rohtas.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Kr. Yadav, SC-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 11-04-2018 The petitioner by way of present writ petition seeks quashing of the order of punishment dated 11.06.2015 as well as the appellate order dated 29.08.2016.

The learned counsel for the petitioner firstly assails the order of punishment dated 11.06.2015 on the ground that despite the fact that the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer as is apparent from the enquiry report dated 15.02.2014, no show cause notice has been issued by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner herein informing him and seeking his opinion on the ground of difference in opinion with the opinion of the Enquiry Officer. It is further submitted that no reason whatsoever has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.8370 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2018 2/3 furnished in the order of punishment dated 11.06.2015 for the purposes of punishing the petitioner herein. The appellate order dated 29.08.2016 is assailed on the ground that firstly the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay and not on merits and secondly the said order has been passed by the same authority who had passed the punishment order.

The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner herein. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the disciplinary authority has faltered inasmuch as no show cause has been issued to the petitioner on the ground on which the disciplinary authority has sought to differ from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and secondly the order passed by the disciplinary authority is not only perverse but totally without application of mind inasmuch as no reason whatsoever has been furnished by the disciplinary authority for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty, especially upon differing from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer who has exonerated the petitioner herein. Hence, the order of punishment dated 11.06.2015 is quashed and set aside.

In view of the fact that the order of punishment cannot be sustained, the appellate order is also liable to fall automatically.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8370 of 2017 (2) dt.11-04-2018 3/3 Accordingly, the appellate order dated 29.08.2016 is also set aside. The writ petition is allowed.

It is needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits as a result of the quashing of the aforesaid order of punishment dated 11.06.2015 and the appellate order dated 29.08.2016.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U