Patna High Court - Orders
Dr.Deoki Nandan Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 April, 2012
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22252 of 2011
======================================================
1. Dr. Deoki Nandan Prasad S/O Baldev Prasad Singh R/O Kumarpur, P.S.-
Sambhu, District- Banka
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary Department of Health, Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
4. The Commissioner, Saran Division at Chapra
5. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Saran at Chapra
6. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR
TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
2 24-04-2012If the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is crystallized on the basic assertion that there is no finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer with regard to any of the charges alleged against him, then whether it is permissible to the disciplinary authority to still award punishment, even though it may be of minor nature category, is germane to the issue.
If it was a case of mere show cause and imposition of minor punishment then it would have been yet another issue but it seems, a full- fledged enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and District Magistrate, Chapra, on both counts of the charges did not find him guilty as such. If that be the outcome of the enquiry, then counsel for the petitioner is correct that no order of punishment, whatever be its nature, could be passed against him. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.22252 of 2011 (2) dt.24-04-2012 2/2
Counsel for the State has submitted that materials were there for imposition of punishment upon the petitioner and in support thereof certain evidence has been annexed as Annexure-A & B including some photographs.
The Court is not impressed by the materials which have been produced in the counter affidavit because these materials ought to have been produced before the enquiry officer in support of the charges for which petitioner was proceeded against. This Court will not act as a super enquiry officer after the proceeding has attained finality.
In the opinion of this Court, even though it is a technical objection which has been taken by the petitioner but the objection seems to be supported by law. No order of punishment could have been passed against the petitioner in view of the finding given by the enquiry officer contained in Annexure-10. The impugned orders, therefore, contained in Annexure 13 and 14, are quashed.
Writ is allowed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/-