IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3026 of 2010 MD. ANJAMUDDIN @ MD. NIZAMUDDIN son of late Tasauar Hussain, resident of Village Gogi Pothia, PO Pothia, PS Simraha, District Araria...Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Mr. A Santosh Mathew (IAS), Commissioner and Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Mr. A Santosh Mathew who is also holding the post of Director, Panchayat Raj, Panchayat Raj Directorate, Bihar, Patna 4. Dr. N Sarvana Kumar (IAS), District Magistrate, Purnea 5. Mrs. Veena Kumari, Block Development Officer, Srinagar Block, District Purnea....Opposite Parties ----------- 06- 6/5/2011 Heard Mr. Gyanand Roy for the petitioner, and Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel IV. The petitioner of CWJC No.5061 of 2009 has preferred this application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, alleging disobedience of the order dated 22.4.2009, whereby the petitioner was given the liberty to submit an exhaustive representation before respondent no.2 thereto, who shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of four months. This arises out of a departmental proceeding. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this application may be indicated. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time functioning as a Panchayat 2 Sevak at Mohni, Block Raniganj, within the District of Purnea, now District Araria. In view of the allegations of defalcation of sum of Rs.29910/-, the appropriate authority had lodged a First Information Report against the petitioner. The same resulted in judgment of acquital dt. 19.11.94, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Araria, in Trial no. 900 of 1994. Departmental proceeding was also initiated against him which resulted in dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring CWJC No.3253 of 1996, which was allowed by a learned single Judge by his judgment dt. 30.9.97, whereby the order of dismissal from service was set aside. It was directed that he shall be reinstated in service, shall be paid his salary from month to month basis from the date of his joining. However, the learned single Judge gave liberty to the authorities to serve copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice on the petitioner. Payment of arrears of salary was to abide the result of the final order of the learned disciplinary authority. 3. The petitioner superannuated from service on 30.10.2007. In view of non-payment of arrears of salary, the petitioner preferred CWJC No.5061 of 2009, which was 3 disposed of by order dated 24.4.2009, whereby the petitioner was directed to submit an exhaustive representation before respondent no.4 who was to dispose of the same with a reasoned order within a period of four months. This was followed by the present contempt application that respondent no.4 did not serve copy of the enquiry report along with second show- cause notice on the petitioner, notwithstanding which the arrears of salary is not being paid to him. Hence this contempt application with the further prayer for payment of arrears of salary. 4. The contemners have placed on record their show- cause, wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s representation has been rejected by order dated 30.12.2010, passed by respondent no.4, indicating the circumstances indicated as to why arrears of salary has not been made. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioner was acquitted in the trial because the prosecution failed to produce any evidence in support of its case, and has attained finality. In so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, the petitioner’s earlier writ petition bearing CWJC No.3253 of 4 1996 was allowed on a technical ground, namely, non- service of a copy of the enquiry report wherein he has been found guilty of defalcation of government funds. It appears on a perusal of the order dated 30.12.2010, that second show-cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report was indeed served on the petitioner. He showed complete lack of co-operation as a result of which respondent no.4 felt exasperated and closed the departmental proceeding. He has, therefore, in substance stated in the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2010 that arrears of salary could not be paid to the petitioner because of his recalcitrant approach in the departmental proceeding. The operative portion of the order dated 30.12.2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:- ** pwWafd izFke Js.kh U;kf;d naMkf/kdkjh }kjk mUgsa mu lHkh vkjksiksa ls eqDr dj fn;k x;k gS] tks vkjksi foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ esa muds fo:) xfBr fd;s x;s Fks A blfy, foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ dks le:i vkjksiksa ij pyk;s j[kus dh lkFkZdrk lekIr gks tkrh gS] ;|fi lafpdk ds voyksdu ls izdkjkUrj ls fofnr gksrk gS fd foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ dk esfjV ij vcrd lekIr ugha gksus dk ewy dkj.k eks0 futkeq|hu dk lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ls vlg;ksxkRed joS;k jgk gS] tks foHkkxh; fu;eksa@ funsZ'kksa ds fo:) gS A vr% fLFkfr dh lkexzrk esa eks0 futkeqn~nhu ds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dks lekIr dh tkrh gS] ijUrq tgka rd fiNyk osrukfn (Back Wages) ds Hkqxrku dk iz”u gS og mij of.kZr ifjizs{; esa dke ugha rks osru ugha ( No Work No Pay) ds fl)kar ij vuqekU; ugha gS A ** (Emphasis added) 5 6. Narration of the chronology of events places the petitioner in dim light. The present contempt application arises out of writ jurisdiction. Law is well settled that writ jurisdiction is never exercised in favour of persons who do not submit to the jurisdiction of law, have no respect for law, and the authorities established by law. It is evident on a perusal of the order dt. 30.12.2010 that after the second show-cause notice along with the enquiry report was served on the petitioner, he refused to co-operative with the authorities. In such a situation, we are convinced that no case for contempt due to deliberate disobedience of the order is made out. Indeed the petitioner is not entitled to arrears of salary because of his conduct. 7. In the result, this contempt application is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl