ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was the Medical Officer in Jannayak Karpuri Thakur Referral Hospital, Tajpur, Samastipur. He was absence for his duty on and from 24th April, 2002 to 3rd April, 2005. The said absence having been considered unauthorized absence by a Government Servant from his duties, a departmental proceeding was proposed as per Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

3. Memorandum of charge against the petitioner was served on 4th November, 2010. Memorandum of charge runs thus:—

fTkyk inkfèkdkjh] leLrhiqj] i=kad 1559] fnukad 11-04-2003 rFkk flfoy ltZu] leLrhiqj] i=kad 1270 fnukad 15-05-2003 }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd mDr fpfdRlk inkfèkdkjh vius dk;ZLFky ls yaoh vofèk ls xk;c gS rFkk dk;Z ds Áfr ykijokg jgrs gSaA

LokLF; foHkkx ds i=kad 1160¼9½ fnukad 25-11-2003 rFkk i=kad 172¼9½ fnukad 10-02-2004 ,oa 174¼9½@27] 21@iŒ fnukad 10-02-2004 rFkk Kkikad 1380¼9½ fnukad 23-08-2004 ,oa 1387¼9½@34@iŒ fnukad 23-08-2004 ,oa 1167¼9½ fnukad 8-11-2006 rFkk 304¼9½ fnukad 10-03-08 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k dh ek¡x dh xbZ fdUrq fdUgha inkfèkdkjh }kjk Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk d"V ugha fd;kA

vr% ;s fcgkj lsok vkpkj fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e&3 ds mYya?ku ds nks"kh gSA

vuqŒ&;FkksDr ¼mijksDr lanfHkZr lHkh i=ksa dh Nk;kÁfr layXu½A

4. Subsequently, the departmental authority considered such unauthorized absence of the petitioner as grave misconduct and punished him with reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a Bar to the promotion of the Government Servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with further direction regarding conditions of restoration to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which Government Servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that time scale of pay, grade, post or service as contemplated in Rule 14(vii) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

5. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment by filing the instant writ petition mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority also considered unauthorized absence of at least three other Medical Officers who were absent continuously for a period more than period for which the petitioner was absent, were subjected to disciplinary proceeding and their unauthorized absence was leniently viewed by the department and only minor penalties were passed against them. On the contrary, for the same unauthorized absence for a lesser period, the petitioner was subjected to major punishment.

6. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner has prayed for reconsideration of his punishment by the department.

7. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit and reiterated his case.

8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made out by the petitioner. It is the specific case of the respondents that due to unauthorized absent of a Medical Officer, the health service was affected and he was rightly subjected to major punishment in departmental proceeding. It is also contended that the departmental proceeding continued following the procedure contained in Rule 17 as well as the principle of natural justice. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment passed against the petitioner.

9. By filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has annexed the orders passed by the Secretariat under the order of the Government taking lenient view and imposing minor penalties against other three doctors namely, Dr. Shail Kumari Jha, Dr. Gayatri Singh and Dr. Gopal Prasad. The petitioner has also filed series of prescriptions to show that his father was suffering from various disease in the year 2002 and subsequently, he died on 11th March, 2003.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Hon’ble