Patna High Court - Orders
Dr.Rita Singh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 15 November, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4494 of 2004
DR.RITA SINGH wife of Dr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh resident of village Sukhpur, P.
S. & District Supaul at Present C/o Vijay Kumar Singh, Vijay Medical Hall
Kutchahari Road Bhabhua, District- Kaimur.
... Petitioner.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. The Secretary & Commissioner, Department of Health, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. Director in chief, Department of Health Services and Medical Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Civil Surgeon & Chief Medical Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua.
... Respondents.
-----------
3. 15.11.2010Having heard Mr. Umeshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief;-
"1. That this writ application is for quashing State Government notification no. 1047 dated 12.11.2003 issued by the Department of Heath and Medical Education whereby the petitioner has been punished with stoppage of two annual increments without commulative effect, censure and no further payment towards salaries already paid as suspension allowance during the period of suspension."
this court is of the considered opinion that even if the impugned order of punishment in terms of Rule 55 A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules by way of minor punishment was passed against the petitioner, the authority concerned was required to pass a 2 reasoned order showing his application of mind to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner in the present case was found to be absent from duty by the Civil Surgeon, her controlling officer, and consequently a show-cause notice was given to her on 31.5.2003 a asking her to explain her unauthorised absence from duty. The petitioner did understand the said charge inasmuch as she had given a detailed reply on 11.7.2003 as also on 1.9.2003 as would be evidenced from Annexure- 10 and 12 to this writ application wherein she had made out her case that she had to proceed on casual leave for looking after her ailing mother-in-law and thereafter she herself became unwell and as such she had been regularly filing her application for leave. Her grievance however is that her such explanation was not at all taken into consideration while passing the cryptic non-speaking order of punishment.
Learned counsel for the State had however tried to support the impugned order of punishment with the help of counter affidavit but then the reasons given in the counter affidavit cannot be made substitute for the consideration actually made at the time of passing of the 3 impugned order. From the reading of the impugned order it is absolutely clear that the authority did not record any reason for rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner and as such its non-consideration is writ large on the face of record.
The scope of Rule 55 A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules has been gone into by this Court from time to time and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh vs. the State of Bihar and Ors, 1983 PLJR 92 had held that though there may not be a requirement of extending an opportunity of hearing like in a departmental proceeding while passing an order inflicting minor punishment under Rule 55 A but then it must appear from the order itself that the explanation/show- cause reply filed by the delinquent has been taken into consideration in all respects.
This Court applying the ratio of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh (supra) is constrained to hold that there is complete lack of materials showing application of mind by the authorities to the show-cause reply and/or explanation filed by the petitioner and as such the impugned cryptic order of punishment dated 12.11.2003 can not be sustained 4 and is accordingly quashed with a direction to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department to reconsider the matter afresh to pass a fresh reasoned order after perusing the two show cause replies filed by the petitioner dated 11.7.2003 and 1.9.2003 as contained in Annexure 10 and 12 to this writ application.
As the claim for any financial benefit or other consequential benefit to the petitioner would however squarely remain dependent on the aforesaid fresh decision of the Principal Secretary of the Health Department, this Court would direct that such an exercise must be completed by the aforesaid authority within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.
kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)