DR BINOD KUMAR KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has assailed the validity and correctness of an order of punishment passed in pursuance of a departmental proceeding as contained in the departmental notification, Memo No. 2116 dated 16.11.2004 whereby and whereunder he has been subjected to the following four punishment:

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to this application is that the petitioner, a member of Bihar Health Service, was initially appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the year 1990 and subsequently he was made in-charge Medical Officer on 8.7.2002 in the Primary Health Centre (PHC), Durgawati at Kaimur where he was also vested with the power of Drawing and Disbursing Officer by an order of the Regional Deputy Director of Health, Patna Division, dated 6.9.2002. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working in the capacity of the In-charge Medical Officer in Durgawati PHC he had proceeded on leave on 30.3.2003 for a period of two days, namely, 1.4.2003 and 2.4.2003 after handing over charge to one Dr. Arun Kumar, posted at Addl. PHC, Chehariya, Durgawati. The petitioner claims that on 31.3.2003 before proceeding on leave he had presented bills for encashment worth Rs. 11,30,000/- from the Treasury for the purpose of making payment of salary to the employees of Durgawati PHC but the petitioner had proceeded on leave with effect from 1.4.2003 without getting them encashed. The petitioner has further claimed that while he had over stayed on leave at Patna till 4th April, 2003 he had received an information that the bills presented by him in Bhabhua Treasury after being encahsed were kept in the office of Drugawati PHC but they were stolen away in the night of 3th and 4th April, 2003 and accordingly, he had rushed to Durgawati on 4th April, 2003 and had instituted a police case being Durgawati P.S. Case No. 20/2003. The petitioner had simultaneously brought this fact to the notice of the Health Commissioner by his separate letter dated 5.4.2003.

(3.) The Health Department, however upon making a fact finding enquiry had placed the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding by the order dated 5.9.2003 and subsequently a memo of charge dated 23.10.2003 was served on him with the following charge: vkjksi fooj.kh Mk0 fouksn dqekj d ;Ik] fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh] izkFkfed Lok0 dsUnz nqxkZorh] dSewj }kjk fnukad 31&3&2003 dks inkf/kdkjh;ks @ deZpkjh;ks ds osru vkfn ,oa vU; jkf k Hkqxrku gsrq yxHkx X;kjg yk[k rhl gtkj :Ik;s dh fudklh dh xbZ A fudklh xbZ jkf k fd cxSj Hkqxrku ,oa leqfpr j[k&j[kko fd;s Mk0 d ;Ik fcuk flfoy ltZu] dSewj ls vodk k Lohd'r djk;s vukf/kd'r :i ls eq[;ky; ls ckj pys x;s A fnukad 3&4&2003 dks jkf= es Mk0 d ;I dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k mDr izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz es ljdkjh jkf k dh pksjh gks x;h A vr% Mk0 d ;Ik vius drZO; ds izfr mnklhurk] ykijokgh ,oa drZO;ghurk ds fy, izFke n'"V;k nks"kh izrhr gksrs gS A