IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2221 of 2009 SURESH PRASAD MANDAL . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 06. 05.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the opposite parties no. 4 to 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was directed to be reinstated. His joining was not accepted. There is a report dated 11.09.2009 of the District Superintendent of Education to that effect. Learned counsel for opposite parties 4 to 7 submits that the joining was accepted though a little late on 5.5.2009. The petitioner himself remained absent after his joining was accepted. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is next submitted from Annexure-‘D’ to the show cause that the Writ Court itself had permitted enquiry into allegations afresh that having been done after due opportunity and notice to the petitioner, his services have been terminated by an order dated 18.5.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny that a show cause was given to him to which he replied and whereafter the order dated 18.5.2009 was passed. He however submits that the subsequent termination is a completely different aspect of the 2 matter. The question is of non-compliance by failing to reinstate the petitioner cashier. In the entirety of the nature of the controversy when the services of the petitioner have been terminated afresh after due opportunity, this Court is not satisfied that the present is a fit case to proceed further in the contempt jurisdiction. The remedy of the petitioner, if so advised, lies in questioning the order dated 18.5.2009 first in a duly constituted fresh writ application. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)