Disposed

Sushila Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Apr 2023CWJC/9679/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two nurse petitioners challenged transfer orders issued against them regarding alleged financial irregularities. The Court held that interference was unnecessary as the orders had taken effect. It directed respondents to modify the transfer orders to remove references to negligence and state only administrative reasons.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed respondents to modify transfer orders to state only administrative reasons without recitals of negligence.

Sushila Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9679 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Sushila Kumari Wife of Birendra Kumar Resident of Mohalla- Ashochak Nandlal Chapra, P.S.- Ram Krishna Nagar, Near Patna Marble, Ashochak, Ward no.46, Manoharpur Kachhuara, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Service, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Director-in-Chief, Health Service, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Principal, P.M.C.H. Patna, Bihar.

¶9

The Principal, A.N.M.M.C.H. Gaya, Bihar.

¶10

... ... Respondents

¶11

======================================================

¶12

with

¶13

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11046 of 2022

¶14

====================================================== Radhika Kumari wife of Ratneshwar Kumar, resident of Nurses Hostel Room No. 8, Grade- A, P.M.C.H. Patna.

¶15

... ... Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Service, Bihar, Patna.

¶18

The Director-in- Chief, Health Service, Bihar, Patna.

¶19

The Principal, P.M.C.H. Patna, Bihar.

¶20

The Principal, Govt. Medical Hospital Bettiah.

¶21

... ... Respondents

¶22

====================================================== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9679 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ramadhar Singh ( GP-25 ) Mr.Anirudh Kumar Singh, AC to GP-25 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11046 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mujtabaul Haque (GP-12) Mr.Vasant Vikas, AC to GP-12

¶23

======================================================

¶24

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶25

3 13-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶26

State.

¶27

Petitioners in both the writ applications have

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.9679 of 2022(3) dt.13-04-2023 2/4

¶29

challenged the order as contained in Memo No. 478(6) dated 15.06.2022 issued under signature of the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been transferred from Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna to Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College & Hospital, Gaya and Government Medical College, Bettiah respectively.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a bare perusal of the order of transfer (Annexure ‘1’), it would appear that the order is stigmatic and it has been issued by way of punishment. It is, therefore, his submission that the transfer order be quashed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed this Court that both the petitioners have already joined at their respective Institutions/ places.

¶32

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It is stated that in connection with certain financial irregularities/ illegalities, a First Information Report being Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 549 of 2021 has been lodged. The counter affidavit also states that there are allegations that while working at Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna, the petitioners were involved in misappropriation of hospital supply

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.9679 of 2022(3) dt.13-04-2023 3/4

¶34

articles. Learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, due to administrative reasons and in the interest of administration, the transfer has been ordered.

¶35

Learned counsel for the State submits that in Annexure ‘1’, there was no need to write that it is being passed for the alleged financial irregularities or negligence but inadvertently, the same has cropped up. However, the fact remains that the petitioners are being investigated in the criminal case.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that prior to issuance of order of transfer, the petitioners were served with show cause notice regarding the alleged negligence/ corruption/ financial irregularities.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State as also on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the nature of the materials present on the record, this Court need not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer which has already been taken effect. So far as the submission that the order of transfer (Annexure ‘1’) contains recital about the negligence and irregularities committed by the petitioners, this Court would simply direct the respondents to modify the order of transfer and

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.9679 of 2022(3) dt.13-04-2023 4/4

¶39

the same be made only stating that the transfer is being made from administrative point of view. This fact is already there in Annexure ‘1’.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, both the writ applications are disposed of.

¶41

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶42

tusharika/-

¶43

Sushila Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mostt. Rita @ Srimati Rita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Ramjan Vs The State of Bihar

Amish Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Kumar Chanchal Vs The State of Bihar

Jaya Kumari Vs The Central Bank of India

Radhika Kumari Vs The State of Bihar