IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1532 of 2005 ARUN KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 12. 27.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Opposite party no. 3 is present in person. In C.W.J.C. No. 12223 of 2000 this Court noticed the objection of the opposite parties that the appointment letter of the petitioner was fake and forged. Rejecting the argument on the ground that there were no departmental proceeding and consequent orders of punishment, and that he had been acquitted in the criminal case, directions were given for payment of salary. The State preferred L.P.A. No. 708 of 2005. The appeal was disposed of on 26.3.2008 with the observation to the following effect (a) that the direction contained in the order under appeal as regards release of salary of the petitioner shall abide by the result of the disciplinary proceeding to be initiated and concluded within six months (b) if within six months the departmental proceeding is not concluded the writ petitioner shall immediately become entitled to salary but the disciplinary proceeding shall not stand vitiated. The departmental proceeding has now been concluded though beyond time and final orders of dismissal passed on 28.11.2008. The order of the writ Court merged in the order of the appellate Court. The appellate Court passed a conditional order for payment of salary, which ultimately for its sustenance was to depend - 2 - on the outcome of the departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding was to be concluded within six months. The proceeding was not precluded thereafter. Salary was to be paid thereafter, but subject to final orders in the departmental proceeding. The right to salary was not absolute but dependent on the outcome of the departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding having concluded and order of dismissal having been passed no direction to pay the salary and then to recover the same can be passed. The order of the appellate Court becomes inoperative in either view of the matter. There is no occasion to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction. The fresh order of termination is beyond the purview of the contempt jurisdiction. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)