RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Annexure-4 dated 28.02.2005, which is a notification of the Department of Health, petitioner was put under suspension for some allegations of dereliction of duty and certain charges against him. It was mentioned that resolution with regard to initiation of departmental proceeding shall be issued separately. Hence, by Annexure-5 dated 6.4.2005, resolution was issued placing the petitioner under a departmental proceeding in terms of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. A copy of the charge memo was annexed with the resolution and the petitioner was directed to submit his reply within three weeks. Conducting Officer and Presenting Officer were also appointed. The charge memo showed that, from different sources complaints had been received in respect of some immoral act by the petitioner which were forwarded to him through letter no. 2126(9) dated 22.11.2004. A copy of the said letter was cited as evidence.

(2.) It was stated in the charge memo that by the said letter reply was sought for from him within one week, but he had not filed the same for which he was also guilty of disobedience and indiscipline. Letter no. 2126(9) dated 22.11.2004 is the next document which shows that two complaints of the villagers of Aurangabad had been received, copies whereof were annexed with the said letter, and petitioner was asked to submit his explanation. The first complaint with the said letter shows that some villagers had complained to the Minister of the Department that the petitioner was not attending to the patients in the hospital and was inducing the patients to visit his private clinic for treatment and he used to demand illegal gratification. The second complaint shows that the villagers had complained that the petitioner was absent from duty from 20th August, 2004 to 28th August, 2004 without any reasons disclosed which showed his irresponsible conduct.

(3.) Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo and thereafter proceeding as per Rule 55 was initiated. After the conclusion of the proceeding the enquiry officer submitted his report, vide Annexure-6 dated 8.7.2005. The enquiry report shows that the enquiry was held against the petitioner in respect of only one charge as was contained in the charge memo enclosed with the said resolution dated 6.4.2005. It shows that no separate charge was framed against the petitioner for his alleged unauthorized absence from 20th August, 2004 to 28th August, 2004. As noticed in the enquiry report, petitioner had explained his conduct in respect of his absence from duty during the period. He stated that, he was on earned leave between 11.8.2004 to 9.9.2004, duly sanctioned by the Civil Surgeon vide his letter no. 2205 dated 7.10.2004.