IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3073 of 2009 PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. . with MJC No.3074 of 2009 BALMIKI PRASAD SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. For the petitioners:- Mr. Amresh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2:- Mr. B.K. Choudhary, Advocate For the State of Bihar:- G.P.-20 (In M.J.C. No. 3074/2009) For the State of Bihar:- Mr. Ranjeet Kr. Pandey, A.C. to G.P.- 21 (In M.J.C. No. 3073/2009) ----------- 06. 05.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and Sri Birendra Kant Choudhary, Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.-2. The petitioners who were working on daily wages were regularized and absorbed in service after consideration by a committee. They were reverted to their status of daily wage by an ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice questioned by them in a writ application. The Court held that if the respondents were of the opinion that the regularization was erroneous, they were obliged to notice the petitioners spelling out the error in the order of regularization and then take a fresh decision after due consideration of objections. It was observed that if despite easy availability of proper legal advise from the panel of Law Officers, the officials of the State Government persist in passing orders contrary to 2 law, the Courts have no option but to set aside such orders. The order of reversion were set aside holding that they were akin to still born child which never came into existence. Liberty was granted to the respondents for proceeding afresh in the matter. Opposite party no.2 filed a show cause stated to have been issued to the petitioners on 18.12.2009 contending that final orders were passed thereafter on 11.01.2010 rejecting their claims. The petitioners contended that they were never reinstated on their regularized posts. The show cause notice dated 18.12.2009 was not in accordance with the order of the Court and gave no reasons for reversions making aware the petitioners of the grounds they had to meet. On 15.09.2010 and 3.11.2010, the State counsel representing opposite party no.2 found it difficult to defend the show cause notice stated to have been issued on 18.12.2009 and that it was in accordance with the order of the Writ Court. The learned State counsel informed that he had already conveyed to opposite party no.2 that the show cause notice was unsatisfactory and the consequential order dated 11.01.2010 unsustainable. The opposite party no.2 however placed the same papers before him to pursue the matter and on declining to do so he did not hear from the opposite party no.2 any further 3 as noticed in the order dated 24.11.2010. The opposite party no.2 was also not present as directed by the Court. On 29.11.2010 a fresh show cause to the proceedings was filed by opposite party no.2 through a private counsel Sri Choudhary who is not from the State panel enclosing the very same show cause notice dated 18.12.2009 and final order dated 11.01.2010. On 4.01.2011 a supplementary show cause has been filed by O.P. no.2 enclosing a fresh show cause notice dated 15.12.2010 issued to the petitioners setting out the grounds on which the authorities were of the opinion that the absorption of the petitioners was not in consonance with law. The private counsel, Sri Choudhary for opposite party no.2 very fairly states that on 18.12.2009 the petitioners had not been reinstated though they were required to be so done after the order of the Court. It is submitted from the language of the fresh show cause dated 15.12.2010 that the petitioners are deemed to have been reinstated on their absorbed posts when the show cause asked them to reply as to why the absorption order be not cancelled. If that be so, the opposite party no.2 has not only flouted the order of the Court by not reinstating the petitioners first but has also wronged them by not allowing them to work on the absorbed post and receive 4 salary in that capacity by continuing to treat them as daily wager and payment made accordingly. Instead of initiating contempt proceedings against the opposite party no.2 and also to undo the wrong done to the petitioners, the Court considers it proper to issue consequential directions for payment of the difference of wages to the petitioners after deducting the same from the salary of opposite party no.2. If opposite party no.2 is acting on trust on behalf of the State, betrayal of that trust vests personal liability in the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2, as directed, is present in person. He states that he did not agree with the suggestion of the State Counsel that the show cause noticed dated 18.12.2009 was not in accordance with the order of the Court and therefore engaged a private counsel. On the justification for issuance of the fresh show cause notice dated 15.12.2010 he acknowledged that the show cause notice dated 18.12.2009 did not spell out any grounds for the petitioners to answer and hence the need for the same. The opposite party no.2 thus contradicts himself and is unable to explain why he persisted with a wrong show cause notice for one year wasting the time of the Court in avoidable litigation. The duty of the Opposite party no.2 was to 5 assist the Court in timely dispensation of Justice. The Court refrains from any observation on his conduct in view of the apology he seeks. Though the Court is not satisfied that it is a genuine remorse and that the Mantra of apology is more of an attempt to avoid the pain of an order in a contempt proceeding, the Court only hopes that opposite party no.2 shall mend his ways in further Court proceedings representing the State Government. The Court consider it proper in the nature of his conduct where he has left himself defenceless to impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) upon him to be deducted from his salary and deposited in the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of six weeks and proof of deposit filed within the same period. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 next submits that this is a double punishment. Prima facie the submission is attractive. On deeper analysis, the first is a wrong undone to the petitioners. The second is for wasting the time of the Court. Contempt does not deal with the aspect of punishment only but also correcting the wrong done. The contempt proceeding stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)