Patna High Court
Brija SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court held that the respondents did not willfully defy the High Court order and therefore the contempt application lacks merit.
Summary
The petitioner, Brija Singh, a former Assistant Engineer, was dismissed in 2019 and the Patna High Court set aside that dismissal, ordering his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and permitting a fresh departmental enquiry. The respondents, officials of the Bihar Government, allegedly failed to pay the ordered benefits and again suspended and dismissed the petitioner after a criminal conviction, invoking Rule 9(5) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The petitioner filed a contempt application claiming willful defiance of the High Court’s order. The respondents contended that they had complied by paying subsistence and suspension allowances and that the fresh enquiry was authorized by the CCA Rules. The Court examined the scope of the High Court’s order, the applicable CCA Rules, and the payments made, concluding that there was no deliberate or willful breach of the order. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents’ actions amount to willful defiance of the High Court order, constituting contempt.
- Interpretation and applicability of Rule 9(5) and Rule 13(2) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 in the context of reinstatement and suspension.
- Whether payment of subsistence and suspension allowances satisfies the order for consequential benefits.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(D), 13(2), 7
Subjects
- contempt
- reinstatement
- departmental enquiry
- government servant
- CCA Rules
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- consequential benefits
- suspension
- willful defiance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.335 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.25057 of 2019
======================================================
Brija Singh Son of Late Dudheshwar Singh, Resident of - Kusumpuram Road,
P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Sri Kumar Ravi, Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Main Secretariat Patna.
2. Smt. Varsha Singh, The Joint Secretary, Building Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Sri Rakesh Kumar, the Additional Secretary, Building Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. Sri Rakesh Kumar, the Chief Engineer (South), Building Construction,
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. Sri Sunil Chaudhary, The Planning Engineer, In the office of Chief Engineer
(North) Wing, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate
Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Prerna, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/state: Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, Standing Counsel 26
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to SC 26
Mr. Divit Vinod, AC to SC 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
13 18-03-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The present contempt application has been filed against
the contemnor - opposite parties for their willful defiance of the
judgment of this Court dated 28.09.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No.
25057 of 2019.
3. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
Patna High Court MJC No.335 of 2024(13) dt.18-03-2026
2/6
petitioner submits that the opposite parties in blatant violation of
the order of the High Court has refused to pay consequential
benefits.
4. This Court while setting aside the impugned order of
dismissal directed the opposite parties-respondents to reinstate
the petitioner with all consequential benefits. The Court at the
same time also observed that the order setting aside the
dismissal of the petitioner will not preclude the respondents/
opposite parties to proceed afresh in the matter from the stage of
enquiry.
5. Accordingly, submission is that the impugned order of
dismissal was not quashed on technical ground but on
substantive ground that the respondents failed to bring home the
charges against the petitioner and did not produce cogent
evidence, as such, the order granting liberty to the respondents
to start fresh proceeding against the petitioner will not entitle the
respondents / opposite parties to suspend the petitioner after
reinstatement and to start a fresh proceeding considering setting
aside of dismissal order on technical ground in terms of Rule
9(5) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control
& Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short “CCA Rules, 2005”). His
contention is that on the contrary Rule 13(2) of the CCA Rules,
Patna High Court MJC No.335 of 2024(13) dt.18-03-2026
3/6
2005 shall apply in the case of the petitioner and the petitioner is
entitled for full salary from the period of dismissal i.e. from
2019 till second dismissal on 06.12.2023 on the ground of
conviction in the criminal case
6. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, learned
Standing Counsel-26 argued that order of this Court has been
complied in terms of provision of law and there is no willful and
deliberate defiance of the order passed by this Court. The
petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Building
Construction Department, Rajendra Nagar Sub Division Office,
Patna and was arrested red handed while accepting Rs. 25,000/-
as bribe from the complainant for which F.I.R. having Vigilance
P.S. Case No. 18 of 2017 was also lodged against the petitioner
for the offence under Section 7 / 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Both criminal proceeding as well as departmental
proceeding were going against the petitioner. In the
departmental proceeding the respondents failed to produce
adequate evidence against the petitioner and only a letter of
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna
and the F.I.R. were produced during the course of enquiry which
were treated as evidence. This Hon’ble Court came to the
Patna High Court MJC No.335 of 2024(13) dt.18-03-2026
4/6
conclusion in the final order passed in the writ petition dated
28.09.2021 that reliance by the Enquiry Officer on the letter of
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna
and the F.I.R. and accepting the same as a piece of evidence is
not correct and the aforesaid two documents could not have
been treated as evidence. In that background while setting aside
the impugned order of dismissal this Court observed that this
order will not preclude the respondents to proceed afresh in the
matter from the stage of enquiry. Granting liberty to the
respondents to start fresh enquiry proceedings against the
petitioner includes that fresh proceeding shall start in
accordance with the provisions of law.
8. He relied upon Rule 9(5) of the CCA Rules, 2005 and
submits that in terms of Rule 9(5) the authority after reinstating
the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court
suspended him with effect from the date of his dismissal on
26.08.2019 and started a fresh departmental proceeding against
the petitioner.
9. The order passed by this Court gives liberty to the
respondents to start a fresh departmental proceeding against the
petitioner as well as Rule 9(5) of the CCA Rules, 2005 gives
permission to the respondents that if the respondents decide to
Patna High Court MJC No.335 of 2024(13) dt.18-03-2026
5/6
hold further inquiry against a Government servant on the
allegations on which penalty of dismissal / removal /
compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government
servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension
by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of
dismissal / removal / or compulsory retirement and shall
continue to remain under suspension until further orders. Fresh
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on
23.06.2022, however, in the criminal proceeding learned
Vigilance Court has convicted the petitioner on 16.11.2022. On
the ground on conviction in criminal case the petitioner has
again been dismissed from service by the respondents on
06.12.2023. The respondents / opposite parties in terms of legal
provision and in terms of order passed by this Court has already
paid subsistence allowance to the petitioner with effect from the
date of his dismissal in 2019 till his second dismissal on
06.12.2023. Apart from the above the respondents / opposite
parties have also paid the suspension allowance to the petitioner
from the his first suspension order dated 02.03.2017 till the date
of second dismissal. Accordingly, submission is that there is no
willful and deliberate defiance of the order passed by this Court.
10. Having heard the rival submission of the parties, taking
Patna High Court MJC No.335 of 2024(13) dt.18-03-2026
6/6
into consideration the nature of order passed by this Court and
the provisions of CCA Rules, 2005, this Court comes to the
conclusion that the order passed by this Court has not been
violated by the respondents / opposite parties deliberately and
willfully. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this contempt
application. The same is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.