JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Tisri (Giridih), a meeting was convened on 13.9.2005 wherein it was resolved to prepare a list of expired medicines so that information to that regard be furnished to Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Giridih, respondent No. 4 for obtaining necessary permission for its destruction. However, according to petitioner, while that process was going on, the petitioner underwent training conducted under National Tuberculosis Control Programme from 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006 by handing over charge to Dr. Md. Saha Kalim but when the petitioner came to know that certain medicines were burnt at the Health Centre on 9.2.2006, information to that effect was communicated telephonically to the respondent No. 4. Surprisingly, the petitioner was put under suspension, vide order as contained in memo No. 119 (8) dated 25.3.2008 (Annexure 5) and the headquarter was fixed at Ranchi. While the petitioner was under suspension, Deputy Commissioner, Giridih directed the Sub-divisional Officer and also Civil Surgeon, Giridih to hold joint enquiry in that matter. Pursuant to that, they did hold enquiry and found that the petitioner is not involved in any manner with the act of the destruction of the medicines. Thereupon, the. petitioner made representation before the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare to do needful in the light of the finding given by them but in stead of dropping the proceeding, an enquiry officer was appointed, who examined the witnesses in course of proceeding and found the petitioner not guilty of the charges and accordingly, submitted its report dated 16.1.2008 (Annexure 11) to the Disciplinary Authority but the, Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of censure as well as stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, vide its order as contained in memo No. 238(4) dated 12.4.2003 (Annexure 13) and under the same order, the petitioner was also transferred to a vacant post at Primary Health Centre Bhawnathpur, Gahwa.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the order of the Disciplinary Authority as contained in Annexure 13, the petitioner has preferred this writ application which was sought to be quashed on the ground of it being passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer in its enquiry report has not found the petitioner guilty of the charges and even made recommendation of revoking the. suspension and in that event, the Disciplinary Authority before awarding punishment should have recorded the tentative reason for such disagreement and should have given it to the delinquent for attending an opportunity to represent but it was never done by the Disciplinary Authority, though he was bound to issue second show cause notice to the delinquent employee communicating the grounds for such disagreement and seek his response but this has never been done by the Disciplinary Authority and hence, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is quite illegal in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Bihari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84.