ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

Date : 20-03-2023 In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letter dated 02.07.2018 contained in letter no. 1315 issued by the Civil Surgeon Cum Member Secretary, District Health Society, Nalanda (for brevity “respondent no. 5”) whereby a direction was issued to the petitioner to remove its all the security guards from the institutions except Sadar Hospital, Sub Divisional Hospital and Primary Health Centers which was being provided by the petitioner pursuant to, an agreement dated 05.05.2017, which was further amended vide agreement dated 17.05.2017 executed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 and further it was directed to stop the payment of the employees serving as security guards till further order;

ii. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment towards the services provided by the petitioner pursuant to the afore stated agreement and for any other relief[s] for which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

02. On perusal of record, it is evident that supply of the Security Guard to the District Health Society, Nalanda at Biharsharif, was in vogue during the intervening period from 03.05.2017 to 04.05.2020. Meanwhile, concerned Respondent noticed that the petitioner was not maintaining records in terms of the conditions stipulated in the agreement like EPF, ESI, Service Tax and GST etc.

03. In this regard, notice is stated to have been issued on 12.05.2018 seeking explanation from the petitioner and it is also learnt that petitioner had submitted his explanation on 14.06.2018. Instead of analyzing show-cause notice, reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice and thereafter taking action, the concerned authority is stated to have invoked shortcut method in dispensing the contract. Annexure-A/7 reads as under:-

" पतቔኋक 1315 पቚኔषक, ससिसविल सिर्ቌन-सिह-सिदस्य सिसचिवि, सरलቔኋ स्विቔኋस्थ्य सिसमिसत, नቔኋलन्दቔኋ।

सिቚኔविቔኋ मिम, एलቔኋईट फफॉलकन्सि, धधीरर कफॉमिसर्ቌयल कफॉम्पलቚኔक्सि, तधीसिरቔኋ तल्लቔኋ, बबोसरगर रबोड, पटनቔኋ 800001 सबहቔኋरररधीफ सदनाሪक 02/07/2018 सविषय: सिदर अस्पतቔኋल , सबहቔኋरररधीफ , अननुमिरडलधीय अस्पतቔኋल , सहलसिቔኋ ए विर रቔኋरगधीर तथቔኋ सिभधी पቔኋथसमिक स्विቔኋस्थ्य कቚኔ न््ቖ कबो छबोड़कर रቚኔष सिभधी सिरस्थቔኋनोሪ सिቚኔ सिनुरकቔኋ गቔኋड्ቌ कधी सिቚኔविቔኋ कबो सिमिቔኋप्त करन ቚኔ कቚኔ सिरबधर मिम।

मिहቔኋरय, उपयनु्ቌक्त सविषयक सरलቔኋ पदቔኋसधकቔኋरधी नቔኋलन्दቔኋ कቚኔ दቔኋरቔኋ सनदቖኔसरत सकयቔኋ गयቔኋ हह सक" सिदर अस्पतቔኋल, अननुमिरडलधीय अस्पतቔኋल एवि र पቔኋथसमिक स्विቔኋस्थ्य कቚኔ न््ቖ कबो छबोड़कर सिभधी रगह सिቚኔ सिनुरकቔኋ कमिर तनुरतर पभቔኋवि सिቚኔ हटቔኋए तथቔኋ SDO Rajgir कቚኔ पቔኋप्त पसतविቚኔदन, मिቔኋननधीय मितर धी, स्विቔኋस्थ्य सविभቔኋग दቔኋरቔኋ सदनाሪक 23.06.2018 कबो दधी

गई सनदቖኔर कቚኔ आलबोक मिम तत्कቔኋल भनुगतቔኋन पर पपूर्ቌ रबोक रहቚኔगधी।"

अत: सदयቚኔ गयቚኔ सनदቖኔर कቚኔ आलबोक मिम सनदቚኔसरत हह सक सिदर अस्पतቔኋल, सबहቔኋरररधीफ, अननुमिरडलधीय अस्पतቔኋल सहलसिቔኋ एविर रቔኋरगधीर तथቔኋ सिभधी पቔኋथसमिक स्विቔኋस्थ्य कቚኔ न््ቖ कबो छबोड़कर रቚኔष सिभधी

स्विቔኋस्थ्य इकቔኋईयोሪ सिቚኔ सिनुरकቔኋ कमिर कधी सिቚኔविቔኋ कबो असविलम्ब तत्कቔኋल पभቔኋवि सिቚኔ सिमिቔኋप्त करनቔኋ सिनुसनसቐኌत करम। सिቔኋथ हधी सनदቖኔरቔኋननुसिቔኋर सिनुरकቔኋ गቔኋड्ቌ कቚኔ भनुगतቔኋन पर अगलቚኔ आदቚኔर तक रबोक रहቚኔगቔኋ।

इसिቚኔ इसि हद तक एकरቔኋरनቔኋमिቔኋ मिम सिर ቔኋसधत सिमिझቔኋ रቔኋय।

सविशቔኋसिभቔኋरन ह0

2.7.2018 ससिसविल सिर्ቌन सिह सिदस्य सिसचिवि, सरलቔኋ स्विቔኋस्थ्य सिसमिसत, नቔኋलन्दቔኋ ।"

04. The aforementioned action is not in consonance with principles of natural justice. No doubt show-cause notice has been issued and official respondents are in receipt of reply to the show-cause notice. In such circumstances, it was bounden duty of the concerned Respondent while passing Annexure-7 on 02.07.2018 to refer and analyze show-cause notice and reply of the petitioner before taking impugned action. Therefore, the impugned action is bereft of reasons and in non-cosideration of petitioner’s version. Impugned action is amenable to judi