A departmental inquiry must adhere to procedural standards, requiring the examination of evidence and witnesses to sustain a charge against an employee.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 24-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner by filing the instant writ application has prayed for quashing the order of punishment contained in Memo no. 2088 dated 23.5.2017 passed under the signature of the Superintendent, Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai (in short ‘DMCH’) wherby the respondents inflicted the petitioners with the punishment of withholding three increments of their salary with non- cumulative effect, censure and that the petitioners would not be entitled for any backwages or any other allowance except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. 3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that while they were posted as Class-IV employees and were working on the post of Kaksha Sevak in the DMCH, they were placed under suspension on 25.9.2015. The petitioners were served with separate identical memo of charges contained in form ‘ka’, one of which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ application.

4. The petitioners filed their replies before the conducting officer who after concluding the inquiry submitted his inquiry report dated 26.2.2016.

5. The respondents thereafter came out with the order of punishment contained in Memo no. 2088 dated 23.5.2017 under the signature of the Superintendent, DMCH inflicting the punishment on the petitioners, as stated above.

6. It is against this order of punishment dated

23.5.2017 that the instant application has been filed by the petitioners.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the departmental proceeding was conducted in absolute violation of the relevant rules and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The inquiry was perfunctory in nature. No witness was examined in course of the inquiry nor any document exhibited or marked exhibit or proved. It is a case of no evidence. It is further submitted that though it has not been stated in so many terms, however on perusal of the order of punishment dated 23.5.2017, there is no mention of the copy of the inquiry report having been supplied to the petitioners.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the order of punishment is not sustainable and the same be set aside and all consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner.

9. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Referring to the counter affidavit filed, it is submitted that the petitioners who were working as Class-IV employees in the DMCH were assigned the work to change the oxygen gas cylinder of the patients who were admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU). As a result of the negligence of the petitioners and lack of oxygen supply, three of the patients died on 28.9.2015. While the petitioner no. 2 was on duty on the relevant date from 10 pm on 27.9.2015 till 8 am on the next day, the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 were assigned duties on 25.9.2015 from 8 am to 2 pm. It is further submitted that the proceedings was started against all three petitioners by placing them under suspension and issuing them with the memo of charges in prapatra ‘ka’. The petitioners were given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. In the inquiry conducted, the charges were found to be proved. There is no procedural irregularity committed in the proceedings and the petitioners have not made out any case for interference in the order of punishment.

10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

11. The relevant facts in brief are that the three petitioners who w