Seniority-based appointment as Incharge remains subject to administrative inquiry and final departmental approval.

The petitioner, a Medical Officer posted at the Community Health Centre (CHC), Patahi, challenged an order dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure-4) issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, East Champaran.

The petitioner contended that as per the Health Department’s instructions in Memo No. 507(3) dated 26.07.2023, the senior-most Medical Officer must be appointed as the Incharge Medical Officer.

He alleged that despite his seniority, Respondent No. 6 (his junior) was appointed to the post.

Conversely, the State argued that the petitioner was removed from the post following complaints of gross misconduct and mismanagement by local public representatives.

A Three-Member Inquiry Committee report dated 13.09.2024 found the petitioner frequently absent from duty, responsible for delayed retiral benefits for staff, and negligent in maintaining medicine and fuel records.

While the Regional Deputy Director proposed the petitioner's removal, final approval from the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Services, was still pending when the petitioner approached the Court.

Whether the appointment of Respondent No. 6 as Incharge Medical Officer violated the Health Department’s seniority-based appointment policy.

Whether the Court should intervene in the administrative decision while the approval process at the level of the Additional Chief Secretary is still pending.

The Court considered the executive instructions issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar, via Memo No. 507(3) dated 26.07.2023, which mandates the appointment of the senior-most Medical Officer as the Incharge at health centers.

It further applied principles of administrative law regarding the exhaustion of alternative remedies and the authority of high-level departmental heads (Additional Chief Secretary) to take final independent decisions based on inquiry reports and representations.

The Court evaluated the conflicting claims: the petitioner’s reliance on seniority-based instructions versus the State’s evidence of administrative failure and misconduct documented by a Three-Member Committee.

The Court observed that while an inquiry report existed against the petitioner, the matter had not reached finality because the Additional Chief Secretary had yet to take a decision on the proposal for removal and the subsequent appointment of the second-most senior doctor.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the misconduct allegations or the seniority claim, the Court determined that the appropriate course of action was to permit the administrative process to conclude.

The Court emphasized that the Additional Chief Secretary must independently assess the documents, including the inquiry report and the petitioner's representation, to reach a lawful conclusion.

It directed the petitioner to file a formal representation before the Additional Chief Secretary, Health Services, Bihar, within 30 days.

The Additional Chief Secretary was directed to take a final, independent decision on the petitioner's representation and the pending administrative proposal within 90 days of receipt, taking into account all relevant documents and inquiry reports.

No immediate relief was granted to quash the impugned order.