ORDER Today, the Chief Secretary's appeal is before the Court which has been filed by him when he was apprehending that by necessity he would go behind the bars, having received such a sentence on 15.12.2003. This fairly common exercise of sentencing State officials can go on. The Court cannot certify, for instance, that in this case the Judge was incorrect. From the record it is clear that an exasperated Chief Secretary, unable to answer for his colleagues, the Secretaries under him, expressed himself strongly. He was only trying to save a member of his team. The Secretaries to the Government are under him, the administration is so structured in the Civil Service. 2. But the underlying reality never comes out in these cases. Nobody wants to discuss this matter frankly. Legislative democracy, parliamentary democracy at the State level, may function in Bihar. But Democracy in Bihar is being misunderstood as only adult franchise having been exercised by the common man. One might ask, what this has got to do with the contempt proceedings at the High Court. The answer is that the issue is directly related to it, because all the arms of the Government have their part in that democratic form of Government, which needs to be totally functional. 3. After all, what is contempt of Court? It's a commitment to the law to honour a judgment decree of a Court, a part of a system so structured by the Constitution of India and the law under it. Two people cannot decide an issue between them, or at times the State is the other party, and the matter goes to Court. The Court is nothing but a sanctioned arbitrator, sanctioned by democracy, sanctioned by law, sanctioned by the Constitution. The Court system is by far the largest dissent-oriented institution, giving space for dissent, disagreement and free expression; but under a structure. An order may be challenged in a higher Court, it can be affirmed, set aside or modified. The judicature, amongst itself, at times errs. An erring order is corrected. And the system expects that everything, all the facts, have been presented by the party that is seeking a correction. If one crucial fact is missing, then the system falters. Cases are not a game in the Stock Market. Within the judicature, litigants have to be chaste, truthful and honest. An erring order is corrected. And the system expects that everything, all the facts, have been presented by the party that is seeking a correction. If one crucial fact is missing, then the system falters. Cases are not a game in the Stock Market. Within the judicature, litigants have to be chaste, truthful and honest. One does not attack Judges, as in the present case. Attacking a Judge is like attacking an institution. If the Judge has committed a misdemeanor which is so serious that he has deliberately, perversely, overtly, corruptly and with bias been spiteful to a litigant, and over interested in a cause, then the Constitution has provided for a system for addressing it's attention at such a situation. In the present matter, the Judge has been confronted. Did he have a personal cause? No. 4. Beyond this particular case, it might also be asked, why are so many contempt cases pending at the Patna High Court? Why are so many service matters pending at the Patna High Court? Why are so many cases of retirement benefits and pensions not paid to employees in public service pending at the Patna High Court? Why did the highest Court of the land on two occasions feel the need to have a set aside a gigantic amount to take care of unpaid retirement benefits and pensions to low-grade employees in public service in Bihar? Do these questions not give some indication of what's happening? Is something wrong with the Courts? Is something wrong within the administration of the State? Where does the real answer lie? 5. These are all matters connected with the present matter. 6. There is a difference between a contempt which attaches to a person who has committed it, and if he be an officer of the State or a public servant, then a contemptuous situation presented by the State. The State as a body politic. Thus, between a contempt and a quasi-contempt, the Patna High Court is embroiled in unraveling the situation. By and large, Judges avoid passing the last order in matters of contempt. But complaints come to the High Court of an order not followed and contempt cases are filed like monsoon rain. The State as a body politic. Thus, between a contempt and a quasi-contempt, the Patna High Court is embroiled in unraveling the situation. By and large, Judges avoid passing the last order in matters of contempt. But complaints come to the High Court of an order not followed and contempt cases are filed like monsoon rain. Either the applicants who bring cases are liars and the Judges who pass orders on contempt matters are in constant error, or the officials, the bureaucracy has become so impervious that it is not responsive to an ordinary man's right to receive his service dues. It will be seen that the majority of contempt cases arise out of service matters. 7. Again, how to get the bottom of this and correct the disease. Unfortunately, the Patna High Court has waited, that someone should come and tell the real story of the virus that is spreading contempt cases like an epidemic. This Court, the Chief Justice's Bench, had taken the initiative four years ago, by telling the State administration through its Advocate General to let bygones be bygones, to take a positive approach to these persistent matters and look to the future. The Chief Justice offered special Lok Adalats. The cases were taken out by hundreds on an agreed Saturday. Which cases were to be considered at the Lok Adalat was left entirely to the administration. This was the only way to tackle the problem, with Judge manpower missing on the Benches so that cases cannot be taken up one by one. The case of the missing Judges is not the subject of this order, though. That aspect lies somewhere else. The Lok Adalat was done, the Judges rose to the occasion to offer their volunteer services, but between the State and its Advocate General, they lost interest in it. The State never had the determination to solve the problem. 8. Again this matter is directly related to the issue at hand because the Chief Secretary has either been rightly indicted for contempt, unless there is some other reason that the learned Judge may have erred. But, then, the answer will lie in a dialectical dissection to find the answer. 9. The bureaucracy is in conflict within its own administration. 8. Again this matter is directly related to the issue at hand because the Chief Secretary has either been rightly indicted for contempt, unless there is some other reason that the learned Judge may have erred. But, then, the answer will lie in a dialectical dissection to find the answer. 9. The bureaucracy is in conflict within its own administration. It is not playing like a team, for it does not pass on the ball to the next forward on either side, it keeps the ball. The ball in this case is the file. If you keep the ball too long, it is a penalty. It is a foul. The case file which has been sat upon (these are service matters) is affecting some lower class employee in public service, to either deny him his dues, arrears on retirement or pension. The answer which is frequently given to the Court is, the file has been sent up to the Chief Minister. The Patna High Court is replete with record after record that even for a chaprasi, when bureaucrats cannot agree, the file is said to have gone to the Chief Minister. At times, the Court is told the matter has gone to the cabinet. State Counsel tell the Court this. Sometimes, it is written on the record also. "Don't touch us," the bureaucrat says, "it is no fault of ours'. But then where does the responsibility lie? The bureaucrats have it told to the Court by State Counsel, and the humble ones who tell the Court softly and subtly, are duly, replaced by special engagements, and such tell the Court more crudely. The answer, softly or crudely, must be heard. 10. The State is run by a very humble, modest extremely well mannered, mild Chief Minister. But on behalf of the State Bureaucrats, the Court is told no file will be cleared unless there is a super-power which will look into it. In between this is a sandwich, a strong contingent of retired bureaucrats who will sit on what they will like to, and will move only when they are pressured, from politics or otherwise. Then what is the function of the bureaucracy itself, which is to administer? Who administers whom? Where is the "steel frame" of democracy, meant to carry out action, decisively? 11. Take the present case, the Secretary to the Government was to take action. Then what is the function of the bureaucracy itself, which is to administer? Who administers whom? Where is the "steel frame" of democracy, meant to carry out action, decisively? 11. Take the present case, the Secretary to the Government was to take action. It was acknowledged yesterday that he never attended office until late afternoon which was his habit. This case arose because of that Secretary. He could not be located. Even today despite being required to be present, which the Chief Secretary said be would, he is not present even at the time of this order being delivered after the Court adjourned the proceedings for a short while. Learned counsel, who appears for the Chief Secretary, stated that he is being located. Where is his hide out that he needs to be located? If his Chief Secretary is involved, in a contempt case in attempting to save him should this Secretary not be present in Court? Even after being told, no one can find him. The Government is run by the Secretary, in the context of the subject portfolio under his charge. At least he's not absolved of it. As a side effect, the Chief Secretary has come under flak on what may be quasi contempt. Is it contempt by the Secretary or a contemptuous circumstance at the instance of the State which the Chief Secretary may have to answer? It is not a case of either. Should charges be framed against the Chief Secretary? 12. Where does the responsibility lie? This is not a simple matter. 13. This Court will take up this matter after summer vacation.