IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2773 of 2017 ======================================================

Dr. Kameshwar Prasad Son of Late Tetar Sahu, resident of Village and P.S. Kauakol, District Nawada at present posted as Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Dumra, P.S. Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sweta Burnwal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP- 25 ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, by filing the instant writ application, has challenged the order of punishment contained in Memo no. 496(9) dated 5.5.2016 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar whereby the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and of censure.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on the charges of having married for a second time in the lifetime of his first wife, the respondents proceeded against him under departmental proceeding serving on him a copy of the memo of charge along with the resolution dated 21.5.2012.

4. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the same and the enquiry proceeded with the Conducting Officer submitting the enquiry report on 21.3.2013.

5. A copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioner on 23.5.2013 to which the petitioner gave a detailed reply on 13.6.2013 (Annexure-5).

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that adopting a procedure unknown to law, the petitioner was served with yet another notice on 3.11.2015 to which the petitioner again filed his reply on 8.12.2015.

7. The respondents thereafter came out with the order of punishment dated 5.5.2016, as stated above. It is against this order of punishment that the instant writ application has been filed.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the very initiation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is in teeth of Rule 17(4) and (5)(a) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (‘CCA Rules’ in short) as the petitioner was not served with any notice nor was given any opportunity for filing a written statement as contemplated in Rule 17 of the CCA Rules.

9. Referring to the contents of the enquiry report wherein the Enquiry Officer himself sent a letter no.121 dated 22.11.2012 to the first wife of the petitioner to appear in the enquiry proceedings and to place her case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer did not act in an independent and fair manner as required under the CCA Rules. It is further submitted that besides the witness called by the Enquiry Officer himself, no other witness was examined and no oral or documentary evidence produced by the Presenting Officer and thus there is a clear violation of Rule 17(14) of the CCA Rules.

10. It is lastly submitted that though a detailed reply to the second show cause notice was filed on behalf of the petitioner, however, the order of punishment shows that not a single point raised by the petitioner therein has been considered and an order imposing major punishment has been passed. It is finally submitted that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.8.2020.

11. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Rama Shankar Chaudhary vs.