Dadan Ram v. The State Of Bihar Through Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, Principal Secretary Of Panchayati Raj Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1744 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18906 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Dadan Ram, son of Late Sudarshan Ram, Resident of Village - Ghurki, Police Station - Dinara, District - Rohtas, Presently suspended Panchayat Sachiv of Gram Panchayaat Raj Magraun, Block - Nasariganj, District - Rohtas.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Arvind Kumar Chaudhary, Principal Secretary of Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. Pankaj Dikshit, the District Magistrate, Rohtas.

3. Kaushal Kishore, the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Rohtas.

4. Om Prakash Pal, the Deputy Collector (Departmental Enquiry), District - Rohtas.

5. Vijayant, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, District - Rohtas.

6. Shashi Shekhar, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Bikramganj, District - Rohtas.

7. Sanjay Kumar, the Block Development Officer Nasriganj, District - Rohtas.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay, GA 5 Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, AC to GA 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 12-09-2018 Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, AC to GA 5 while filing a supplementary show cause informs this Court that the order passed on the writ petition has been complied in letter and spirit inasmuch as not only the subsistence allowance has reached the petitioner, even the disciplinary proceeding has come to an end by imposition of punishment vide order dated 08.09.2018 enclosed with the supplementary show cause.

Patna High Court MJC No.1744 of 2018 (6) dt.12-09-2018 2/2 While accepting the position Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a dispute on quantification of subsistence allowance.

While thus giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before appropriate authority in respect of the quantum of subsistence allowance, I would dispose of this contempt application affording liberty to the petitioner to question the order of penalty before an appropriate forum by filing an appropriate application, if so advised.

The contempt proceeding is dropped. The contempt application is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/Ranveer U