IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.4332 of 2009 1. BIRENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE M.K. SINGH AGE ABOUT 54, R/O NEW JAKKANPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR TOWN & DISTT. PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. HEMCHANDRA SIROHI, PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER DEPTT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHWASHRAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. UMESH KUMAR VERMA, DEPUTY SECRETARY DEPTT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHWASHRAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 06. 25.03.2011 Petitioner has filed this contempt application alleging non- compliance of the orders of this Court dated 2.7.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7354 of 2009, Annexure-1, whereunder this Court directed the State respondents of serve the documents relied upon against the petitioner within one month and thereafter to proceed with the departmental proceeding. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that within the time granted by this Court under orders dated 2.7.2009 the documents relied upon by the State respondents were not served on the petitioner. Such fact is being disputed by the State respondents by placing on record the resolution bearing letter no.776 dated 17.12.2009, whereunder instructions were issued to serve memo of charge and the documents on the petitioner. Resolution dated 17.12.2009 was served on the petitioner on 22.12.2009, which is evident from receipt, Annexure-B/1. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that along with resolution, the documents annexed with the charge sheet were not served on the petitioner. 3. Aforesaid submission is being disputed by the State respondents with reference to the order below paragraph 6 of the resolution dated 17.12.2009 that copy of the resolution enclosing the 2 charge sheet in form ‘ka’ be served on the delinquent and endorsement to that effect was made in the receipt by writing memo number as also Anulagnak(Enclosure). It is submitted that had the petitioner not received the enclosure appended with letter no.776 he should have written on the receipt that letter no.776 has been received by him, bereft of the enclosure. Such endorsement having not been made by the petitioner, it is submitted by the State respondents that enclosures were also served along with letter no.776 on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in any case, State respondents failed to comply the directions of this Court to serve the documents within the time granted by this Court under orders dated 2.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right on this score, as the documents having been served on the petitioner under resolution dated 17.12.2009 on 22.12.2009 i.e. after about six months of the order. Delay caused in compliance of the orders of this Court is a matter of concern and this Court could have proceeded against the State respondents for complying the orders of this Court with delay but in appreciation of the fact that apology has been tendered for complying the orders of this Court with delay, no action is being taken against the authorities for complying the orders of this Court with delay. 4. This contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the suspension order or the final order passed in the proceeding on the ground that documents appended with the charge sheet was not served on him. Rajesh/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)