IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2932 of 2006 PRATIMA SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr.B.K.Mishra, Advocate For the opposite parties : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel- XXII --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 06th August, 2008 The writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of on 09th January, 2006, by the following operative order; “ The respondent-Deputy Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar ( respondent no.5) who has issued the suspension order is directed to serve a memo of charge on the petitioner within three weeks of the production of a copy of this order along with a representation and then he should make every attempt to conclude the proceeding within a period of nine months from the date of issue of suspension order dated 3.11.2005, Annexure-13. He should also ensure that the petitioner is paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.” 2. By this application, the petitioner has raised grievance that the order dated 09th January, 2006 has not been complied with inasmuch as the departmental proceeding had not been completed within the time granted by this court. 3. The opposite party no.5 has shown cause by filing a counter affidavit dated 4th of April, 2007. The opposite party no.4 has - 2 - also responded vide counter affidavit dated 19th March, 2007. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. On 10th of July, 2008, the opposite party no.5 has filed a supplementary counter affidavit. 4. It is true that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner could not be disposed of within the time granted by this court in the order dated 09th January, 2006. However, the said delay has been sufficiently explained. The facts that have come on record do not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the authorities deliberately and intentionally proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings leisurely and thereby did not dispose of the said proceedings within the time granted by this court. As a matter of fact, the authorities seem to have waited for the audit report. The audit report has since been received and diverse financial irregularities and defalcation of government money are found to have been committed by the petitioner and for that first information report has been also lodged against the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, no case for invocation of contempt jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the present case is made out. MJC is disposed of accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil