DEO KRISHNA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was suspended by an order dated 27.7.1990. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on 16.6.1992. The order of dismissal then came to be passed on 2.6.1997.

(2.) THE petitioner questioned the order of his dismissal in C.W.J.C. No. 6111 of 1999. The opposite parties filed their counter affidavit supporting the order of dismissal. After hearing the parties this Court by its judgment and order dated 8.10.2004 held that the report of the Enquiry Officer was without jurisdiction and perverse. The entire proceedings were conducted contrary to law. The order of punishment was at variance to the show cause issued for the proposed punishment. It was also based on materials extraneous to the memo of charges. The order of dismissal dated 2.6.1997 was thus held to be vitiated in law and was set aside. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits within a period of four months from the date of receipt and/or communication of a copy of the order. The petitioner served a copy of the order of the writ court in the office of opposite party on 3.11.2004. The order of this Court was still not complied with. The petitioner then instituted the present contempt application on 9.3.2005 before this Court alleging non -compliance of the judgment and order dated 8.10.2004.

(3.) THE respondents then preferred L.P.A. No. 1251 of 2005. The order dated 9.11.2005 of the L.P. A. Bench reflects that the direction for reinstatement with consequential benefits was never assailed. The relief sought in appeal was confined to the issue of holding a fresh enquiry. The appellate Court clarified liberty for the purpose. This Court in the contempt matter on 5.1.2006 noticed that the order dated 8.10.2004 of reinstatement with consequential benefits had thus attained finality. The opposite parties filed a show cause that the order of the writ court had been complied with and necessary orders for reinstatement had been issued on 15.3.2005. This Court required the respondents to file an additional show cause why the order of this Court remained uncomplied with regard to the grant of consequential benefits, whereafter it would consider the matter appropriately.