High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Ram Yatan Prasad vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 3 September, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Yatan Prasad vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 3 September, 2010
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                          MJC No.2255 of 2009
                        Ram Yatan Prasad, son of Sri Budhan Prasad, resident of village-
    Tekuna, Police Station- Bodh Gaya, District Gaya              ....Petitioner

                                      Versus
            1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
               Old Secretariat, Patna
            2. Mr. Amir Subhani, Secretary Department of Personnel and Administrative
               Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna
            3. Mr. Rajvansh Mani Singh, Joint Secretary Department of Personnel and
               Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna
            4. Mr. Surendra Mohan Sinha, Deputy Secretary Department of Personnel and
               Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna
            5. Mr. Vijay Prakash, Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Rural
               Development Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
                                                                  ...Opposite Parties
                                               -----------

3 03-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

From the show cause filed on behalf of the

State, it appears that disciplinary proceeding remanded

against the petitioner in respect of which this court had

passed earlier an order and granted liberty to proceed in

accordance with law has been concluded leading to an

order against the petitioner under the Bihar Pension

Rules.

The submission advanced on behalf of the

petitioner is that the authorities have not acted in

accordance with law and the final order is, therefore,

illegal.

2

No doubt the authorities have caused delay in

concluding the proceeding and taken beyond nine

months time which was granted by the Division Bench,

but for that only we do not want to punish the opposite

parties. So far as alleged illegality or irregularity is

concerned, we do not deem it proper to go into the

relevant issues in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. This

contempt application is finally disposed of.

It goes without saying that petitioner will have

the liberty to challenge any illegal order/decision on all

permissible grounds through appropriate proceeding in

accordance with law.

(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)

BKS/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)