IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.324 of 2010 1. MD. JAMALUDDIN HUSSAIN MANSURI S/O MD. GAJI HUSSAIN R/O VILL.- MANSHA TOLA (NEAR RAILWAY GUMTI), POST- BETTIAH, P.S.- BETTIAH MUFASSIL, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR BETTIAH, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR BETTIAH, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER OF NARKATIAGANJ CIRCLE DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN ------------- 3. 11.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 7.7.2010 Mr. S.M. Rajabansh, Divisional Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffapur and Mr. Dev Kumar Dev, Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah are present. It is actually the Collector of the district who faces the allegation of non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 11.5.2009 in CWJC No. 12285 of 2002, operative portion whereof reads as follows:- “……Since the petitioner has made a categorical statement in paragraph no. 37 of the writ petition that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him and the impugned order was passed without even affording opportunity to meet the reasonings in the enquiry report, this Court following the ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B.Karunakar & Ors. reported in 1993(4) SCC 727 would 2 quash both the impugned orders dated 22.10.2001(Annexure-1) and 10.9.2002(Annexure-2) and remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority namely Collector West Champaran Bettiah with a direction to him to proceed afresh from the stage of making available the enquiry report. Such enquiry report with a show cause notice must be supplied and served on the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and thereafter, the petitioner should file his reply within a period of next four weeks so that if at all the petitioner’s departmental proceeding has to be continued for the purposes of inflicting punishment that must come to an end in next four months of filing the reply/comments to the enquiry report by the petitioner…...” The grievance of the petitioner in fact is that when the order of this Court was supplied to the office of the Collector, no action was taken thereon for next six months and in fact only when this contempt application was filed on 29.1.2010, the Collector woke up from his slumber and had sought to supply a copy of the enquiry report. Unfortunately, even this much explanation was not furnished to this Court, when the matter was earlier listed on 7.7.2010 and in fact this Court on that occasion had found that the Collector of the District had not at all 3 taken any notice either of the directions given by this court or the filing of the contempt application by the petitioner. In such a situation this Court had directed for personal appearance of both Divisional Commissioner and the District Magistrate and that is how they are present here today. A show-cause has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Bettiah wherein his first plea is that he is a new entrant to the office having joined only in first week of July 2010 and therefore he cannot be hauled up and held guilty for non compliance of the order which actually was caused by his predecessor Mr. Ramesh Lal, the then Collector, Bettiah. His second plea is that as soon as he came to know of the order of this Court, he had once again got the matter looked through an Additional Collector and thereafter he had passed an order agreeing with the note of the Additional Collector for dismissing the petitioner from service. At this stage, the Collector of the District would intervene to suggest that the Additional Collector had already not passed any punishment order rather the file was routed through different authorities and the 4 Additional Collector had only submitted the file to him. It is really unfortunate that a responsible officer like the Collector of the District who is not only an officer of Indian Administrative Service but a product of Indian Institute Technology (I. I. T.), Roorkee is incapable of understanding the plain and simple order of this Court dated 11.5.2009. From his explanations it becomes clear that he also does not know the way in which a disciplinary proceeding has to be completed inasmuch as once an enquiry officer is appointed and his report is submitted, it is the Disciplinary authority, namely, the Collector who himself has to apply himself to the materials on record and pass his final orders without allowing anyone else to interfere in his decision making process. There was a clear direction of this Court in the order of this Court that the petitioner should be supplied that enquiry report on the basis of which his earlier order of punishment was passed. That report was not supplied for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order and it is said that Mr. Ramesh Lal the then Collector of West Champaran was responsible for such 5 delay. Since the Commissioner Tirhut Division is personally present and has assured that he will look into this aspect with regard to the role of Mr. Ramesh Lal, this Court would leave the matter for the present with the Divisional Commissioner who himself having obtained explanation from Mr. Lal would pass an appropriate order and if he finds that Mr. Ramesh Lal was the person who was responsible for not taking any step as directed by this Court in the aforesaid order, he would do the needful for dereliction of duty on his part. Coming to the present Collector, this Court would find that he has again not complied the order in the manner it was sought to be done. This court had merely directed for supply of the enquiry report for eliciting opinion of the petitioner inasmuch as after the petitioner could have submitted his explanation in respect of the findings in the enquiry report, the Collector of the District had to pass his own order in the light of the materials on record namely charge-sheet, the findings in the enquiry report and the materials referred to in such enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer as well as the explanation furnished by the petitioner. That has 6 not been done by the present Collector till date. At this stage the present Collector of the District however would now seek an indulgence to purge himself by complying the order of this Court dated 11.5.2009 in CWJC No. 12285 of 2002 in letter and spirit. Considering the fact that the present Collector has only joined in the first week of July 2010, this Court by way of grace would give indulgence to him to purge the contempt. The present Collector therefore would proceed de novo from the stage of receipt of the order of this Court dated 11.5.2009 passed in CWJC No. 11285 of 2002. He would first supply the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report on which the earlier order of punishment dated 22.10.2001 was passed by his Predecessor and was also affirmed by the then Divisional Commissioner in appeal on 10.9.2002. After the petitioner would submit his explanation, which he must do within a period of four weeks from the date of service of the said enquiry report on him, the Collector of the District in person after applying himself to the records of the departmental proceeding and the explanation furnished by the petitioner would pass an appropriate 7 order. While doing so the present Collector of the district must keep in mind that the petitioner has already completed the age of superannuation and therefore no order of punishment in terms of Discipline Control and Appeal Rules can be passed against him. It would be however open for the Collector to pass an appropriate order in terms of Bihar Pension Rules provided the ingredients of Rule 43 of the said Rules are attracted in the case of the petitioner. Such exercise however must be completed within a period two months from the date of filing of the explanation/show cause reply by the petitioner. Whatever be the final decision in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner must be communicated such decision within a total period of four months from the date of receipt of the present order and the amount which the petitioner may become entitled either by way of payment of salary and/or retirement benefit must be paid to him within a period of next three months from the date of passing of such final order by the Collector of the district. It is also directed that Collector of the West 8 Champaran District shall also send his action taken report to Mr. K. P.Gupta, S. C. V for its being filed before the registry of this Court. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this contempt application is disposed of. Let the personal appearance of both Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and the District Collector, Bettiah be dispensed with. kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)