IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2595 of 2010 1. DEVENDRA JHA S/O LATE HARDEV JHA R/O VILL.- BASAHA, P.S. BAJPATTI, DISTT.- SITAMARHI --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SRI ANUP MUKHERJI, THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. SRI A.SANTOSH MAITHU, SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. SRI A.K.CHAUHAN, VIGILANCE COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. SRI DEEPAK PRASAD, DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATI RAJ GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. SRIMATI RANJU GEETA, THE CHAIRMAN, ZILA PARISHAD, SITAMARHI 6. SRI BIMLA NAND JHA, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SITAMARHI 7. SRI NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH, THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER-CUM-DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SITAMARHI 8. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 05 18.11.2010 The present contempt application has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1028 of 2010, wherein a direction has been issued to the official respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order against the person named in the petition termed as P.I.L. A show cause has been issued by this Court and in reply to the show cause, it has been stated in paragraph 6 that a show cause notice was issued to the accused person on 07.10.2010, as to why his services should not be terminated on the basis of proved charges/enquiry report and recommendation stated therein, but he has not submitted the explanation. Again another show cause notice was issued on 29.10.2010 as a last 2 chance to submit his explanation but the accused person has not filed his explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the opposite parties have failed to complete the enquiry within a period of eight weeks as directed by this Court, the opposite parties have violated the order of this Court . We are not in the agreement with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly the submission made in the show cause at paragraph no.6, we are of the opinion that the contempt petition needs no interference. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Pkj/Sym ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )