D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is a Doctor in Jharkhand State Medical Services. She is working at State Hospital, Mander, District -Ranchi, which is approximately thirty kilometers away from Ranchi city. As there is no residential accommodation at village -Mander, the present petitioner is staying at Ranchi and attending the hospital at Mandar. On 10 April, 2001, as her father was hospitalised, she had not attended the job, but, had accompanied her father at another hospital and for one day's absenteeism, the present petitioner was suspended from the services w.e.f. 8 November, 2001. Though leave report was given on 11 April, 2001, neither was it sanctioned nor was it rejected. Petitioner was suspended since 8 November, 2001, onwards and ultimately, wisdom has prevailed upon the respondents and respondents revoked the suspension w.e.f. 25 September, 2003. The said letter is at Annexure -14 to the memo of the writ petition. No notice, no enquiry was ever been conducted by the respondents for any misconduct whatsoever arises, on the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by revocation of the suspension, the leave report presented on 11 April, 2001, was sanctioned. Thus, there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner, who is serving since years with the respondents as Doctor, sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, but, in letter dated 25 September, 2003, a warning has been given to the petitioner that in future, such type of error will not be repeated and this has been ordered to be published in the Government Gazette. This tantamounts stigma to the services of the present petitioner. Never any mistake or error on the part of the petitioner has been proved, as alleged by the respondents and therefore, such a paragraph added in revocation of the suspension letter dated 25 September, 2003 (Annexure -14 to the memo of the writ petition) especially, what is referred in paragraph 3 thereof, deserves to be quashed and set aside, mainly for the reason that there is no enquiry, conducted by the respondents, for the so called error, committed by the respondents and the stigma attached to the services of the petitioner vide this paragraph No. 3 of Annexure -14, is without any basis and thus, the same is arbitrary and, hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that initially, the present petitioner was suspended and thereafter, her suspension was revoked vide letter dated 25 September, 2003. The present petitioner had remained absent without permission and therefore, a warning was given to the petitioner, as per paragraph -3 of Annexure -14 - letter that henceforth, she will not repeat the same error. This type of warning does not tantamount to any punishment. Always high ranking officers can give such type of directions to the subordinates and therefore, there is no substance in this writ petition and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) the present petitioner is working as a Doctor in State Hospital at Mander, District -Ranchi and she is working with the respondents sincerely, honestly, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents, since 1981 onwards. Thus, the present petitioner has rendered her services to the State as a Doctor and on 10 April, 2001 as her father was hospitalised or was to be taken at hospital, the petitioner could not attend the State hospital at Mander. Leave report was presented on 11 April, 2001. For one day's absenteeism, the present petitioner was suspended from her services. (ii) thereafter, no enquiry was ever been conducted by the respondents for the so called or alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Thus, no misconduct or any error has been proved by the respondents, which has been alleged by them. This is an admitted position of the fact. (iii) thereafter, petitioner's suspension was withdrawn vide letter dated 25 September, 2003. The said letter is at Annexure -14 to the memo of the petition. While revoking the suspension, paragraph No. 3 has been added by respondent -State that the petitioner is given a warning that in future, this type of error will not be repeated by her and this has been ordered to be published in the Government Gazette. The petitioner is aggrieved by this paragraph No. 3 of Annexure -14, and it appears that though no error or misconduct has been proved by the respondents and no enquiry has been conducted, at all and it has been mentioned in paragraph No. 3 that a warning is given to the petitioner that in future, she will not be repeated this type of error, it appears that there is no basis for writing paragraph No. 3 in letter dated 25 September, 2003 at Annexure -14 to the memo of the petition. It also tantamount stigma to the services of the present petitioner. It pre -supposes that the misconduct or error committed by the petitioner ought not to have been repeated by the petitioner. This type of presumption on the part of the respondents is de hors the facts and the respondents cannot presume any error or misconduct, unless the same is proved by enquiry. This type of paragraph is not, at all, warranted when the suspension is revoked and no enquiry is conducted against the delinquent. Respondents could not establish any basis for the said paragraph No. 3 of letter dated 25 September, 2003 at Annexure -14, to the memo of the petition. Just for the sake of writing, such type of paragraph cannot be added, which affects the service career of an honest, efficient and sincere employee of the State. The concerned officer ought to have restrained himself in giving such type of warning, which pre -supposes an error committed by the petitioner, in past. (iv) learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only for quashing paragraph No. 3 of letter dated 25 September, 2003, at Annexure -14 to the memo of the petition, mainly for the reason that by now, the suspension has already been revoked. The counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, also reveals no reason for giving such type of warning and stigmatic paragraph No. 3 of the impugned Annexure -14 to the memo of the petition. Thus, paragraph No. 3 of letter dated 25 September, 2003, is without any basis and just for the sake of writing, it appears to have been written, by the respondents. In fact, it tantamount stigma to the services and therefore, unless and until the so called error, referred in paragraph No. 3 in the impugned Annexure -14, is established by enquiry, it ought not to have been referred by the respondents in paragraph No. 3, in the impugned letter.
(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I, hereby, quash and set aside paragraph No. 3 of the letter dated 25 September, 2003, written by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi at Annexure -14 to the memo of the petition. As the letter dated 25 September, 2003, which has already been published in the Gazette, I hereby, direct the State to publish in State Gazette this letter dated 25 September, 2003 only with paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 and the copy of this notification shall be given to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be paid/given all the consequential benefits, in accordance with law. Rest of the part of the order dated 25 September, 2003 is not under challenge and therefore, it is kept as it is.;