Ramji Prasad Srivastava @ R. P. Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2997 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1204 of 2016 ====================================================== Ramji Prasad Srivastava @ R. P. Srivastava, Son of Late Brajnandan Prasad Srivastava, Resident of Village + P.O. - Susta (Madhopur), P.S. - Muzaffarpur, District - Muzaffarpur.

... ... 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, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna null null

5. Sri Shyamanand 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 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Suryadeo Yadav, AAG 9 ====================================================== 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.2997 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