IMPORTANT POINT
An admission of guilt by a public servant can negate the necessity for a formal inquiry in disciplinary proceedings, allowing for the imposition of punishment based on that admission.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4319 of 2020, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment of censure and stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

Facts

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, are required to be enumerated, which reads as under:

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that she was posted as Professor and Head of Department, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad.

4. In terms of the order passed by this Court in A.B.A. No.6637 of 2018 and letter no. 639/2019, dated 13.02.2019, written by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Barwadda P.S., Dhanbad, a committee/ medical Board was constituted by the Superintendent of Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad vide office order no.325 dated 15.02.2019. From the said office order dated 15.02.2019, it appears that four heads of different Departments of the Hospitals were appointed in the said Committee/ Medical Board to submit a medical report on the documents so produced in relation to Barwadda P.S. Case No. 167/18, related to death of one Anjuman Baano. Thereafter, a reminder was also sent to the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital regarding the medical report which was to be received before 01.03.2019 before the Jharkhand High Court. On receipt of said letter, the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital orally informed the petitioner to submit desired report on immediate terms. On receipt of information, the office of the Head of the Department of all the Departments was duly informed in terms of the letter no. 325 dated 15.02.2019 for proceeding in the matter.

5. In terms of said letter, Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Head of Department of Radiology; Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Assistant Professor of Medicine Department and Dr. Swapan Kumar Saraak, Tutor, FMT Department came for meeting of the Medical Board. The issues were discussed and accordingly, after considering facts on record, unanimously medical report was prepared on 25.02.2019 and thereafter forwarded to the Superintendent, Patliputra Medical College and Hospital vide letter no. 135 dated 25.02.2019.

6. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that after submission of medical report, she was not aware as to when the same was sent before the High Court. She was acquainted only when questions were raised on the report of the Medical Board because of the fact that Heads of the Medicine Department and FMT Departments were not present on the date of meeting of the Board. It was also brought to her knowledge that show-cause was issued to the respective heads for not being present on the date of meeting of the Medical Board and for the reasons of which Dr. Swapan Kumar Saarak was present in the meeting who had performed postmortem, report of which was in question. The presence of Dr. Swapan Kumar Saarak in the Medical Board itself shows that the report of the Medical Board was under cloud.

7. It is further case of the writ petitioner that without issuance of any show-cause, writ petitioner was asked to reply as to why not punishment under Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 should be imposed on her for her negligence and administrative lapses.

8. Thereafter, the writ petitioner submitted her reply to the respondent no. 2 admitting her guilt and clearly mentioned that it was due to inadvertence the said mistake was committed and the same was not intentional. She would have called upon a new Medical Board should have been called upon and previous report could have been rejected and fresh report could have been submitted if the same was brought to her knowledge by Superi