IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3330 of 2008 KRISHNA BIHARI PRASAD, son of Late Mahabir Prasad resident of Mohalla Shantipuri, p.O. and P.S. Motihari Town, District East Champaran. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Sri Arun Singh, Commissioner, Building Constriction Department, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3.Sri Arun Singh, the Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 4.I.S. Dhariwal, the Accountant General, R.Block, Bihar Patna. 5.Sri Jairam Rajak, Chief Engineer, Building Construction Department, North Division, Patna. 6.Shri Suresh kumar Das, the Superintending Engineer, (Incharge), Building Circle, Motihari. 7.Shri Suresh Kumar Das, the Executive Engineer, Building construction circle, Bettiah, West Champaran. 8.Shri Birendra kumar Singh, Assistant Engineer, Sub. Divisional Officer, Building Construction Circle, West Champaran, Bettiah. ----------- 2 23-02-2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. With reference to the order of this Court dated 11.1.2008 in C.W.J.C. No.6323 of 2002 counsel for the State has produced a copy of the final order in the departmental proceeding dated 10.8.2009, wherein certain punishment has been imposed on the petitioner by way of recovery of the amount. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such order does not take into consideration the vouchers already filed by the petitioner which has to be adjusted in view of its being spent on government work. This Court however cannot give any finding in this respect, inasmuch as, in the departmental proceeding it was always 2 open for the petitioner to take such a plea, but then if the petitioner can still demonstrate by substantiating his grievance before the authority that any amount which has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner is adjustable in view of the vouchers of the petitioner, the same may be raised before the competent authority who may look into the matter and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Let it be however made clear that this Court has not gone into merit of such claim of the petitioner. This much however can be observed that the remedy for the petitioner against the order dated 10.8.2009 cannot be claimed in this contempt proceeding as the petitioner will always be at liberty to take appropriate steps against the order dated 10.8.2009 before appropriate forum as is available to him in law. With the aforementioned observation this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)