Patna High Court
Dr. Binod Kumar Safi vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14032 of 2015
======================================================
Dr. Binod Kumar Safi S/o Late Ganga Safi resident of Veluchak, Sadar Thana
Road, P.O. Kabirchak, P.S. Sadar, District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Additional Secretary to the Government, Department of Health, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director - in - Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kumar Ojha, Advocate
Ms. Megha Singh, Advocate
Mr. Navneet Prabhakar, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Deepak Sahay Jamuar, A.C. to A.A.G.-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-05-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) For quashing of the notification
inflicting punishment of forfeiter of 20%
pension and gratuity contained in memo no.
1245 dated 23.9.2013 for alleged violation
of the government direction in issuing indent
for medicine from MSD, Kolkata.
(ii) For appropriate order/direction/writ
directing the respondents to act upon the
notification contained in memo no. 1245
dated 23.9.2013 whereby in purported
exercise of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
2/24
Rule 20% of the Pension and gratuity have
been permanently forfeited.
(iii) For appropriate declaration:-
(a) That the entire departmental proceeding
under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rule
is nullity and perverse proceeding as the
charges are vague and contrary to record.
(b) That the disciplinary authority as well as
enquiry officer has not applied his mind for
forfeiture of pension and gratuity is illegal
and arbitrary exercise of power.
(c) That issuing of indent for medicine by the
petitioner was the accordance with the
guidelines of the state government and
within the allotment and as such no
misconduct was committed by the petitioner.
(d) That as per purchase policy the deputy
director (material), Health Department was
obliged to monitor the indent order from the
MSD, Kolkata and any indent of medicines
on account of necessity due to epidemic
cannot be considered as lapse on the part of
the petitioner.
(e) That admittedly no payment was made by
the petitioner for purchase of medicine from
MSD, Kolkata and there is no allegation of
irregular or wrong utilization of medicine or
non receipt of medicine from MSD, Kolkata
as per the indent.
(f) That necessity for additional medicine
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
3/24
considering the epidemic and
emergency/exigency cannot be construed as
misconduct and can be a ground for
forfeiting 20% pension and gratuity.
(iv) For a direction to the respondents to pay
the full pension and gratuity as if the
notification contained in memo no. 1245
dated 23.9.2013 is not existed.
(v) Any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner be found entitled in law be
granted to him."
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Civil
Surgeon-cum-Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Gumla from
03.12.1990
to 23.05.1995, wherein he had issued indent for
supply of medicine in accordance with the existing purchase
policy of the government within the allotment. After the
petitioner was transferred from Gumla, an enquiry was
conducted by the Regional Deputy Director (hereinafter referred
to as RDD), Health, Chota Nagpur, Ranchi with regard to
supply order of medicine from MSD, Kolkata. The RDD after
conducting an enquiry, submitted his report, copy whereof was
also served upon the petitioner. The report so submitted stated
that the order for supply of medicine was within the allotment.
After six years of the submission of the report, vide notification
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
4/24
contained in memo no. 1075 (3) dated 21.08.2002 issued under
the signature of the Joint Secretary to the Government,
Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna the
petitioner was put under suspension and his headquarter was
fixed in the office of the Regional Deputy Director, Health
Service, Muzaffarpur. Subsequently, vide letter no. 702 (9)
dated 12.09.2003 issued under the signature of the Deputy
Secretary to the Government, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna, memo of charge was issued against
the petitioner and he was directed to submit his reply to the
show cause notice. After suspension, since the subsistence
allowance was not being paid to the petitioner, the petitioner
filed a writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as
C.W.J.C. No. 2702 of 2005. The said writ petition was heard by
a learned Co-ordinate Bench of the Court and vide order dated
24.05.2006, the learned Co-ordinate Bench proceeded to allow
the writ petition, preferred by the petitioner. After passing of the
order dated 24.05.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 2702 of 2005, vide
memo no. 605 (9) dated 13.05.2006 issued under the signature
of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Department of
Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of
Bihar, Patna, a decision was taken to initiate departmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
5/24
proceeding against the petitioner on the charges which were
served upon the petitioner vide letter no. 702 (9) dated
12.09.2003. It was further mentioned in the said letter dated
13.05.2006 that the Presenting Officer and the Enquiry
Officer/Conducing Officer would be appointed later on. It was
further ordered to serve the letter dated 13.05.2006 upon the
petitioner along with the memo of charge, which was issued
vide letter dated 12.09.2003. The petitioner was directed to
submit his show cause reply. In compliance thereof, the
petitioner vide his letter dated 07.07.2006, submitted his reply to
the show cause notice, wherein he gave a detailed para-wise
reply to the charges levelled against him. During pendency of
the departmental proceeding vide memo no. 746 (3) dated
25.06.2008 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary
to the Government, Department of Health, Government of
Bihar, Patna, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and
he was posted in the office of the Deputy Director, Health
Services (Headquarter), Government of Bihar, Patna. The
petitioner asked for certain documents vide his letter dated
06.11.2009. Vide letter no. 156 (9) issued under the signature of
the Under-Secretary to the Government, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna, addressed to the petitioner, it was
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
6/24
informed that the documents asked for by the petitioner are not
relevant in the proceeding against the petitioner and with regard
to certain documents, it was stated that the same have been
asked for, from the concerned place and after receipt of the
same, the petitioner will be served/supplied with the said
documents. Again vide his letter dated 08.02.2010, the petitioner
submitted a supplementary show cause reply before the Under-
Secretary to the Government, Department of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna, wherein he again reiterated the
same thing, which he has stated in his reply and further
explained the department about his non involvement and not
committing any mistake or irregularity in purchase of the
medicine. Again vide letter dated 22.02.2010, the petitioner
asked for certain documents to be supplied to him. Further vide
his letter dated 13.06.2010, the petitioner again gave a
supplementary show cause reply, denying all the charges which
were levelled against him and he further informed the
departmental enquiry Commissioner that despite his repeated
directions to the departmental representative, to make available
the documents and evidences related to the charge, the same
have not supplied to the petitioner. Vide letter dated 11.07.2010,
the petitioner again submitted a supplementary show cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
7/24
before the departmental enquiry Commissioner. Subsequently,
vide letter dated 15.10.2010 and 25.10.2010, the petitioner again
submitted a reply to the show cause and asked for certain
documents to be provided to him. Vide memo no. 49 (9) dated
10.01.2012 issued under the signature of the Additional
Secretary to the Government, Departmental of Health,
Government of Bihar, Patna, the departmental proceeding
initiated against the petitioner was converted in a proceeding
under Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The Enquiry
Officer, after conducting his enquiry, wherein he found the
charges levelled against the petitioner to be partially proved,
submitted his report before the disciplinary authority on
26.04.2011. Pursuant thereto, vide letter no. 421 (9) dated
27.03.2012, the second show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner and the petitioner was given 15 days time to file his
reply to the said notice. Along with the said letter dated
27.03.2012, the Enquiry report was also provided to the
petitioner. In compliance thereof, vide letter dated 10.05.2012,
the petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the second show
cause notice issued to him, whereby he denied all the charges
levelled against him and requested the disciplinary authority to
exonerate him from the charges levelled against him. Finally,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
8/24
vide order contained in memo no. 1245/9 dated 23.09.2013
issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary to the
Government, Government of Bihar, Patna the petitioner was
inflicted with the punishment of deduction of 20% pension and
gratuity, permanently. It has further been recorded in the order
that although, the Bihar Public Service Commission has not
given its consent to the proposed punishment stating therein that
the same is disproportionate, however, the disciplinary authority
by differing with the recommendation of the BPSC, proceeded
to award the punishment above-mentioned under the Rule 43
(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the charge itself is vague and stale and is in complete
violation of the provisions of principles of natural justice. He
further submits that despite denial of consent by the BPSC, with
regard to proposed punishment to be passed against the
petitioner, the impugned order of punishment has been passed.
He further submits that the Enquiry Officer without any
evidence proceeded to prove the charges levelled against the
petitioner partially. He further submits that the disciplinary
authority passed a cryptic order and did not even consider the
reply submitted by the petitioner, to the second show cause
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
9/24
notice as well as the defence taken by the petitioner in his reply
to the show cause and his supplementary reply.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that during course of the entire departmental
proceeding, no witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer
and only on the basis of the documents, he proceeded to pass the
impugned order of punishment. He further submits that the
documents which were taken note of by the Enquiry Officer,
during course of Enquiry, never proved by their respective
authors, therefore, the same should not have been relied upon by
the the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer only his own
presumption, without any justifiable basis, recorded that the
charge against the petitioner has been partially proved.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
and relies upon a judgment of the learned Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court dated 27.08.2008 passed in a similar nature of case
i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 11488 of 2005 (Dr. Suresh Jha Vs. The State
of Bihar and Ors.), wherein the learned Co-ordinate Bench
proceeded to quash the impugned order of punishment and
directed for grant of all the service related benefits as well as
consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner. The Letters
Patent Appeals bearing L.P.A. No. 965 of 2008 was preferred by
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
10/24
the State of Bihar against the order/judgment dated 27.08.2008
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11488 of 2005, however the appeal
preferred by the State of Bihar was dismissed with a cost of Rs.
5,000/- , which was directed to be paid to the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in AIR 1971 SC 752 (Surath Chandra
Chakrawarty Vs. The State of West Bengal), wherein in
paragraph no. 4, it has been held as follows:-
“The grounds on which it is proposed to take
action have to be reduced to the form of a
definite charge or charges which have to be
communicated to the person charged
together with a statement of the allegations
on which each charge is based and any other
circumstance which it is proposed to be
taken into consideration in passing orders
has also to be stated. This Rule embodies a
principle which is one of the basic contents
of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for
defending oneself. If a person is not told
clearly and definitely what the allegations
are on which the charges preferred against
him are founded he cannot possibly, by
projecting his own imagination, discover all
the facts and circumstances that may be in
the contemplation of the authorities to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
11/24established against him. By way of
illustration one of the grievances of the
appellant contained in his letter dated
March 24, 1950, to the Enquiry Officer may
be mentioned. This is what he said though
the language employed is partly obscure and
unhappy:”
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1986 (SC) 995 (Sawai
Singh v. State of Rajasthan), wherein in paragraph nos. 15 to
18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“14. Quite apart from that fact, it appears
to us that the charges were vague and it
was difficult to meet the charges fairly by
any accused. Evidence adduced was
perfunctory and did not at all bring home
the guilt of the accused.
15. Shri B. D. Sharma, learned advocate for
the respondent, contended that no
allegations have been made before the
enquiry officer or before the High Court,
that the charges were vague. In fact the
appellant had participated in the enquiry.
That does not by itself exonerate the
department to bring home the charges.
16. It has been observed by this Court in
Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. State of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
12/24West Bengal (1971) 3 SCR 1: (AIR 1971 SC
752) that charges involving consequences
of termination of service must be specific,
though a departmental enquiry is not like a
criminal trial as was noted by this Court in
the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.
Sree Rama Rao (1964) 3 SCR 25: (AIR
1963 SC 1723) and as such there is no such
rule that an offence is not established
unless it is proved beyond doubt. But a
departmental enquiry entailing
consequences like loss of job which now-a-
days means loss of livelihood, there must be
fair play in action, in respect of an order
involving adverse or penal consequences
against an employee, there must be
investigation to the charges consistent with
the requirement of the situation in
accordance with the principles of natural
justice in so far as these are applicable in a
particular situation.
17. The application of those principles of
natural justice must always be in
conformity with the scheme of the Act and
the subject matter of the case. It is not
possible to lay down any rigid rules as to
which principle of natural justice is to be
applied. There is no such thing as technical
natural justice. The requirements of natural
justice depend upon the facts and
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
13/24
circumstances of the case, the nature of the
enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal
is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with
and so on. Concept of fair play in action
which is the basis of natural justice must
depend upon the particular lis between the
parties. See K. L. Tripathi v. State Bank of
India (1984) 1 SCC 43: (AIR 1984 SC 273).
Rules and practices are constantly
developing to ensure fairness in the making
of decisions which affect people in their
daily lives and livelihood. Without such
fairness democratic governments cannot
exist. Beyond all rules and procedures that
is the sine qua non.
18. Having regard to the consequences with
which the delinquent officer was charged
and having regard to the nature of charge
and the evidence of hand-writing expert
and the absence of opportunity for cross-
examination and the conflicting nature of
evidence of Chaturbhuj and nature of
evidence given by Jiwan Dass, we are of the
opinion that the report of the enquiry officer
finding the appellant guilty should not have
been sustained and the government should
not have acted upon it. The High Court, in
our opinion, with great respect, was in
error in not bearing in mind these aspects
which have been indicated hereinbefore.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
14/24
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court reported in 2015 (4) PLJR 435 (Hassan
Muzahid Vs. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors.),
wherein in paragraph nos. 07 and 08 has held as follows:-
“7. The petitioner was dismissed by enquiry.
The only flaw pointed out by the the
Disciplinary Authority, after conducting
enquiry. The only flaw pointed out by the
petitioner and the one that weighed with the
learned Single Judge, is that the
Disciplinary Authority did not furnish any
reason in support of his conclusions. It needs
hardly any mention that the issuance of
second show cause has a definite purpose to
serve and that is the only occasion, or
avenue where the delinquent employee can
make an attempt to convince the
Disciplinary Authority that the findings by
the Enquiry Officer are not correct. He can
also impress upon the Disciplinary Authority
that the proposed punishment need not be
awarded and he can plead extenuating
circumstances. Since, the order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority was passed
without taking into account, the grounds
pleaded by the delinquent employee in his
reply to the second show cause, it certainly
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
15/24turns to be defective. Time and again, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such
exercise tends to be violative of one of the
facets of the principles of natural justice,
and the opportunity given to an employee
would be reduced to empty formality. We,
therefore, do not find any basis to interfere
with the view taken by the learned Single
Judge in this behalf.”
8. However, the direction issued to effect that
the petitioner shall be reinstated in service,
and thereafter, be placed under suspension,
cannot be sustained in law. Since the order
of punishment is not set aside on merits, the
proceedings are just relegated to the stage of
issuance of second show notice. Therefore,
the petitioner shall be deemed to be under
suspension, till the Disciplinary Authority
passes a fresh order, as directed by the
learned Single Judge.”
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi
Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.), wherein in paragraph nos.
14 and 23, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as
follows:-
“14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
16/24The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have
been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty
to arrive at a finding upon taking into
consideration the materials brought on
record by the parties. The purported
evidence collected during investigation by
the investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated to be
evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No
witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses
merely tendered the documents and did not
prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter
alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the
FIR which could not have been treated as
evidence.
23. Furthermore, the order of the
disciplinary authority as also the appellate
authority are not supported by any reason.
As the orders passed by them have severe
civil consequences, appropriate reasons
should have been assigned. If the enquiry
officer had relied upon the confession made
by the appellant, there was no reason as to
why the order of discharge passed by the
criminal court on the basis of selfsame
evidence should not have been taken into
consideration. The materials brought on
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
17/24record pointing out the guilt are required to
be proved. A decision must be arrived at on
some evidence, which is legally admissible.
The provisions of the Evidence Act may not
be applicable in a departmental proceeding
but the principles of natural justice are. As
the report of the enquiry officer was based
on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and
conjectures, the same could not have been
sustained. The inferences drawn by the
enquiry officer apparently were not
supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is
well known, however high may be, can under
no circumstances be held to be a substitute
for legal proof.”
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
refers to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India reported in 2010 (2) SCC 772 (State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha), wherein in
paragraph nos. 27, 28 and 30 has held as follows:-
“27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule
shows that when the respondent had failed to
submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it
was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to fix
a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is
only in a case when the government servant
despite notice of the date fixed failed to
appear that the inquiry officer can proceed
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
18/24with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such
circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry
officer to record the statement of witnesses
mentioned in the charge-sheet. Since the
government servant is absent, he would
clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination
of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to
establish the charges the Department is
required to produce the necessary evidence
before the inquiry officer. This is so as to
avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has
acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge.
28.An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-
judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed
to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that
the charges are proved. In the present case
the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been
proved, and could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the charges
have been proved against the respondents.
30.When a departmental enquiry is
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
19/24conducted against the government servant it
cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The
enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry
officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules
of natural justice are required to be observed
to ensure not only that justice is done but is
manifestly seen to be done. The object of
rules of natural justice is to ensure that a
government servant is treated fairly in
proceedings which may culminate in
imposition of punishment including
dismissal/removal from service.”
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-State submits that the petitioner, while
posted as Civil Surgeon procured/purchased medicines, by
violating the directions of the State Government contained in
letter dated 27.01.1982 and the same was more than the
allotment made in that regard. He further submits that pursuant
thereto, a show cause was issued to the petitioner and memo of
charge was also served upon him. Thereafter the Enquiry
Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed. The Enquiry
Officer, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, proceeded
to submit his enquiry report wherein he found the charge
levelled against the petitioner to be partially proved. The
disciplinary authority by following all the procedure of law,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
20/24
issued second show cause notice to the petitioner and alongwith
the second show cause notice the enquiry report was also
provided. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show
cause notice, which was duly taken into account by the
disciplinary authority and after considering the enquiry report
and the second show cause reply submitted by the petitioner, the
disciplinary authority proceeded to award punishment of
permanent reduction of 20% of the amount of pension and
gratuity. He submits that the entire departmental proceeding was
conducted in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in
the orders passed by the disciplinary authority. He further
submits that the departmental proceeding is conducted on
preponderance of evidence and High Court under Articles 226 is
not expected to review the enquiry report and the evidences
brought on record during course of Enquiry Officer.
13. Having considered the rival submissions and
after going through the documents on record, it appears that
while the petitioner was posted as Civil Surgeon-cum-
Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Gumla, he purchased/placed
order for certain medicines for which he was competent to
order. An Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the
RDD, Health, Chhota Nagpur, Ranchi was directed to conduct
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
21/24
an enquiry. After conducting the enquiry, the RDD submitted his
report wherein he came to the conclusion that the order for
supply of medicine was within the allotment and he did not find
any irregularity in the purchase of medicine by the petitioner. It
further appears that after almost six years, a departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which was kept
pending and subsequently in the year 2006, again a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner for the charge memo which
was served upon the petitioner on 12.09.2003. The petitioner
submitted his written explanation on 07.07.2006, wherein he
stated that he had issued the indent in accordance with the law
and the guidelines issued by the government and the said
purchase order was issued through proper channel and no
payment was made at the level of the petitioner. He further
submitted in his reply that the medicines which were received
by the petitioner were utilized in the Hospital and the entry of
the said medicine was also made in the Stock Register. It further
appears that the memo of charge does not disclosed any specific
charge against the petitioner, rather some vouchers and amounts
have been mentioned, for which the proceeding was initiated
against the petitioner and during course of departmental
proceeding, the Enquiry Officer without examining any witness,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
22/24
only on the basis of the documents made available by the
Presenting Officer found the charges to be partially proved.
Even he found that the petitioner had followed the rules and he
was competent to issue the intent, however, on presumption, he
proceeded to prove the charge partially proved against the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority in his impugned order
contained in memo no. 1245 (9) dated 23.09.2013 did not even
considered the reply filed by the petitioner, to the second show
cause notice or the reply which was submitted by the petitioner
at the time of the departmental enquiry and only recorded that
after considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the
punishment order has been passed. Further, even the BPSC did
not give consent on the proposed punishment, which was to be
inflicted upon the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority
by differing with the concurrence given by the BPSC, proceeded
to pass the impugned order of punishment. During course of
entire departmental proceeding, no witnesses were examined
which denied any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine
the witnesses, to rebut the charges and to prove his innocence.
Even the documents which were relied upon by the Enquiry
Officer were not proved by their respective author, which
caused prejudice to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
23/24
14. Further a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in a similar matter arising out of illegal purchase of
medicine from M.S.D. vide order dated 27.08.2008 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 11488 of 2005, while observing that no materials
were brought on record by the department during course of
enquiry and no evidence was laid down during course of
departmental enquiry, proceeded to hold that the case is of no
evidence against the petitioner of that case and therefore,
proceeded to allow the writ petition by quashing the punishment
order, will all benefits.
15 Considering the above, this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned order of punishment contained in
memo no. 1245 (9) dated 23.09.2013, issued to the signature of
the Additional Secretary to the Government, Department of
Health, Government of Bihar, Patna deserves to be set aside and
is accordingly set aside.
16. Consequent upon the quashing of the order
dated 23.09.2013, the petitioner is entitled for payment of his
entire 100% of gratuity as well as 100% of the pension. The
petitioner will be treated to be getting 100% pension and
gratuity, which he was entitled prior to passing of the order
contained memo no. 1245 (9) dated 23.09.2013.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14032 of 2015 dt.04-05-2026
24/24
17. The respondent authorities are directed to make
payment of the remaining 20% of the pension and gratuity,
which has been withheld on account of passing of the impugned
order dated 23.09.2013 within a period of four months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The petitioner
would be entitled for payment of 100% pension w.e.f.
01.06.2026.
18. With the aforementioned observations and
directions, the present writ is allowed.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.05.2026 Transmission Date NA
