Patna High CourtCWJC/18960/2015disposed

Sunita Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-04-21Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18960 of 2015 ====================================================== Sunita Sinha Wife of Lalan Prasad Resident of Village-Bind, Ps. Bind Dist Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate , Nawada.

4. The District Treasury officer, Nawada.

5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nawada.

6. The Director cum inquiry officer , Additional Chief Medical Officer, Nawada.

7. The In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Rajauli, District Nawada.

8. The In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Sirdala, District Nawada. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sc7-Mithilesh Kumar Pathak ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-04-2016 The petitioner prays for quashing of order dated 12.7.2013 issued by respondent no.5 by which the petitioner has been suspended.

Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the charges submits that even as per the FIR, only allegation against her is that she concealed the fact of disappearance of new born baby and there is no allegation that she was involved in her disappearance. Further, the departmental proceeding has not yet been concluded.

Though, I am not impressed with first ground of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.18960 of 2015 (2) dt.21-04-2016 2/2 petitioner. Nonetheless, the second ground needs appropriate consideration.

Having regard to the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to quash order of the suspension. However, if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, suspension of the petitioner would automatically stand vacated. It is made clear that petitioner would co-operate with the respondents.

Shashi.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) U