Syed Ali Abbas v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2996 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.835 of 2016 ====================================================== Syed Ali Abbas son of late syed Hasan, Resident of Mohaamadpur Mubarak P.O.-Purushottampur, District -Muzaffarpur At present House No. 13/74, Alinagar Anisabad, Road No. A/1, Patna.

... ... Writ petitioner-Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Arun Kumar, the Principal Secretary, Water resource Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, the Joint Secretary (Management), Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. Sri Ram Pukar Ranjan, the Engineer -in- Chief (Madhya), Water Resource Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

5. Sri Shyamanad Jha, the Additional Secretary(Vigilance), Water Resource Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

6. Jyoti Singh, the Under Secretary (Vigilance),Water Resource Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondents-Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Shakib Ayaz, AC to G.P. 12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 31-01-2018 Keeping in view the compliance made by the respondents and the fact that departmental proceedings have been completed within the time fixed, now on account of the fact that ACP or other consequential benefits have not been extended to the petitioner, I am not inclined to initiate any action for contempt. There is no specific direction that in case the petitioner is exonerated in the departmental enquiry, all consequential benefits should be granted to him. The direction issued is that if the departmental enquiry is not completed within a stipulated period, it is deemed to have been concluded under law and then

Patna High Court MJC No.2996 of 2016(3) dt.31-01-2018 2/2 the consequential benefits granted.

That being so, now on account of the fact that the petitioner is exonerated in the departmental enquiry, the question of grant of consequential benefits is a different cause of action which cannot be considered in this contempt application. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sunil/- U