CHANDAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by filing this writ application, has sought quashing of the order of dismissal of the petitioner as contained in memo no. 1986(9) dated 10.7.2004 (Annexure-8) and reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It appears from the averment made in the writ petition that the petitioner was inducted in the Bihar Health Service and at the relevant time, i.e., in the year 1990, he was posted as District Leprosy Officer, Patna. In the year 1998, when the petitioner was posted as Medical Officer-in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Mahua in the District of Vaishali, the Chief Vigilance Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare sent a letter dated 22.6.1998 (Annexure-1) to the petitioner making allegation with regard to purchase of medicines from M.S.D., Kolkota, beyond the allotment of fund and against the policy of the Government with regard to purchase of medicines, though he was not a competent officer to place orders for such purchase. All the allegations of such purchase were of the years 1990-91 while the petitioner was posted as District Leprosy Officer at Patna. It appears that the petitioner submitted his show cause on 3.7.1998 (Annexure-2) denying the allegation levelled against him. Though he did not deny the fact of placing the order for purchase of medicines, but had tried to explain that the orders placed by the petitioner were just and proper being compatible with the population of the district of Patna and the large number of leprosy patients suffering in the District. He also questioned the price mentioned by the M.S.D., Kolkota which, according to him, was much higher than the market price. He also accepted that the medicines ordered were supplied in different instalments. However, the petitioner was put under suspension by the order dated 23.2.1999, a copy of which is appended as Annexure-3. Subsequently, a copy of the resolution as contained in memo no. 547(18) dated 23.2.1999 (Annexure-4) initiating a departmental proceeding alongwith the charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had challenged the suspension order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 12622 of 2001, however, during the pendency of the writ petition the order of dismissal, as contained in Annexure-8, was served upon the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3979 of 2004 for amendment in the relief portion so that he could challenge the order of dismissal also. That prayer was allowed on 24.8.2004 (Annexure-10). However, the aforesaid writ application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5.7.2005 and a petition for restoration of the same being M.J.C. No. 1980 of 2006 was filed but later on withdrawn after seeking permission of the Court for filing a fresh writ application challenging the order of dismissal. Thereafter, the present application was filed. Coming back to the disciplinary proceeding, it is admitted that the petitioner appeared in the inquiry which was concluded and the inquiry report was sent to the Government in the month of April 2001. On 3.12.2002 the petitioner was served with second show-cause notice alongwith the inquiry report vide Annexure-6 to explain as to why he be not dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his show-cause. However, by the resolution as contained in Annexure-8, the petitioner has been dismissed from the service.

(3.) Counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit have also been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2.