- (1.) The present contempt application has been preferred mainly against the noncompliance of the order passed by this Court dated 30th June, 2009 passed in finally disposed of writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 1135 of 2009, which is at Annexure4 to the memo of the application.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the following direction was given by this Court while disposing of the writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 1135 of 2009 vide order dated 30th June, 2009. ''4. In view of these facts, I hereby allow this petition and the orders passed by the respondents at Annexures1 and 1/A are hereby quashed and set aside as there is breach of principles of natural justice. Similarly, the orders passed against the present petitioner no. 2 are also hereby quashed and set aside to the extent to which they are deducting sizeable amounts from the retirement benefits of the petitioners. Nonetheless, the liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate action against the present petitioners, in accordance with law and after following principles of natural justice. It is needless to say that the respondents shall consider judicial pronouncements as referred at Annexures 6 and 7 to the memo of the present petition whenever they are taking any action against the present petitioners. In view of the aforesaid direction, it appears that liberty was reserved with the respondents to initiate action against the petitioners, in accordance with law and after following the principles of natural justice
(3.) It further appears that in compliance of the aforesaid order, requisite notices were issued to the original petitioners , which are at Annexures2 and 2/A of the memo of this contempt application and after giving adequate 2opportunity of being heard, the Vice Chancellor of Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi, (opposite party no. 2) has passed a detailed speaking order dated 17th March, 2010, which are at Annexures3 and 3/A (for original petitioner nos. 1 and 2). Looking to these orders, it appears that it requires a challenge by way of a writ petition, if they are advised. Several facts are involved in this application mainly for the reason that it is alleged by the opposite partyUniversity that there are certain letters written by the original petitioners admitting the amount to be refunded to the opposite partyUniversity. These facts have been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;