JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was working as the Blood bank technician in Tripura Medical College and Dr. BR Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital. On allegation that the petitioner issued one wrong bag of blood for a critical patient namely Gita Paul on 11.03.2016, an inquiry was instituted inasmuch as for mismatch in the blood group, the said patient suffered acute immune haemolytic blood transfusion reaction. The petitioner was responsible for distributing the blood unit bag and it has been alleged that even the attending staff nurse and the doctor did not verify the blood group label before the transfusion started. 3. There was an inquiry as stated, by a committee constituted by the said teaching hospital. On 21.03.2016, the Medical Superintendent, Tripura Medical College and Dr. BR Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital received a complaint from two relatives of the said patient. In the complaint, they had given the narrative how the said incident took place : “(2) On 25th Feb, 2016 Doctor Abhijit Sarkar advised 2-4 units of blood for her during and after operation which took place on 26th Feb, 2016. Even after his advice the concerning medical team did not follow up to care and took no initiative to transfuse blood which was arranged by us accordingly (two unites blood from AGMC). It was only 11th March, 2016 at around 10.30 am due to fall of haemoglobin level 5.4 mg% then concerning medical team become active. It took only 14 days for them to become active even on 11th March, 2016 they delayed only 8 hours (10.30 am-6.30 pm). (3) The team of the nurse has no proper knowledge regarding insulin injection through injection machine. On 1st March, 2016 the nurse injected insulin @ 2ml/hour insulin (normal saline-insulin mixture) the injection machine. It was surprising that they did not follow whether insulin was transfusing or not but three hours they kept on testing blood sugar level after one hour interval (12 noon-3pm). However at that time we noticed that insulin was not infusing into patient body that showed in the screen of machine. (4) On 17th march our patient’s haemoglobin level was tested as per Doctor’s advice in your central laboratory and also in a private laboratory. However at that time we noticed that insulin was not infusing into patient body that showed in the screen of machine. (4) On 17th march our patient’s haemoglobin level was tested as per Doctor’s advice in your central laboratory and also in a private laboratory. Test result of both the labs did not match. But your Doctor accepted the private lab’s result denying the central lab’s result. This creates huge confusion regarding reliability of your institution.” 4. It is apparent on the face of the record that on the basis of the said complaint the inquiry was not instituted, inasmuch as it is apparent that the first meeting of the inquiry committee was held on 16.03.2016 at 2 pm in the office of the HOD, Medicine, TMC whereas the complaint was received on 21.03.2016. The committee summoned the staffs who were on duty on the day of incidence. After the detailed inquiry, the said committee headed by Dr. Arindam Datta of the said hospital has furnished the report with the following conclusions : “1. That a mismatched blood transfusion had occurred on 11.03.2016 in female Ortho ward on the patient Mrs. Gita Paul. 2. That the blood bank Technician Mr. Santanu Deb issued one wrong bag of blood for the patient Mrs. Gita Paul on 11.03.2016. 3. That the doctor on duty Dr. Kunal Das Jr. did not verify the blood properly. 4. That Miss Baby Das, staff nurse on duty on 13.3.16 evening shift had transfused the blood without proper verification by Doctor on duty and without checking the cross match slip by herself. As such the committee has found that the incidence of mismatched blood transfusion on 11.3.2016 has occurred due to negligence of the following individuals : 1. Mr. Santanu Deb, Blood Bank Technician 2. Dr. Kunal Das, Jr. on duty 3. Miss Baby Das, Staff Nurse on duty.” With a copy of this report, the petitioner was asked to give the reply and the petitioner furnished his reply on 16.03.2016 [Annexure R/3 to the reply filed by the respondents]. 5. By the memorandum dated 22.09.2011, it has been observed by the O.S.D (HR), Society for Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital that the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and he was warned that any further recurrence will be dealt very seriously. 6. 5. By the memorandum dated 22.09.2011, it has been observed by the O.S.D (HR), Society for Tripura Medical College & Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital that the reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and he was warned that any further recurrence will be dealt very seriously. 6. The petitioner had filed a representation against the said memorandum dated 14.06.2016 stating that fault could have been detected by the attending doctor and the nurse. They failed to do the proper verification before the transfusion started. By the said representation, the Chief Executive Officer was urged to recall the said stigmatic communication. It appears that in response to the said representation, the memorandum dated 15.07.2016 [Annexure P/4 to the writ petition] was issued by dismissing the petitioner from the service. 7. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the entire act of dismissing the petitioner is capricious and denial of justice inasmuch as no reason has been provided by the Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel has further submitted that the committee appointed by the hospital-respondents made three employees/officer liable for the said negligence. Without affording any adequate opportunity, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 8. Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the hospital-respondents has submitted that adequate opportunity has been granted to the petitioner by issuing the memorandum dated 14.06.2016 and the petitioner has furnished his reply on 20.06.2016. In the said reply, he did not deny his liability to issue the wrong blood unit bag for transfusion and as such, the petitioner cannot contend that no opportunity was afforded to him. 9. In reply, Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that there is no record to show that the petitioner had issued the said blood unit bag. It is only on surmise that the petitioner has been targeted. Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel has further submitted that the statement of the petitioner that annexed by the respondents with their reply was obtained from the petitioner under coercion and as such no credence should be given to that statement. 10. It is only on surmise that the petitioner has been targeted. Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel has further submitted that the statement of the petitioner that annexed by the respondents with their reply was obtained from the petitioner under coercion and as such no credence should be given to that statement. 10. Having perused the averments, records as produced by the respective parties and appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel, this court is of the view that the impugned memorandum dated 15.07.2016 has imposed a highly disproportionate penalty on the petitioner while seen in the perspective that the inquiry committee have clearly held the staff nurse and the medical officer who were attending that patient were equally responsible along with the petitioner for the said mismatch. 11. In the emerged circumstances, this court is of the view that a fresh show-cause notice be issued to the petitioner and the petitioner be allowed to file a detailed reply against the allegation of negligence or dereliction of duty as brought against him by the respondents. The respondents, thereafter, having due regard to the proportionality, would pass the necessary order, if required at all after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned memorandum dated 15.07.2016 is setaside. 12. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in his post within 30(thirty) days from today and they would complete the proceeding in terms of the above within 3(three) months from the day when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the Chief Executive Officer, Society for Tripura Medical College and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital. Having observed thus, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.