IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8958 of 1996 ISHWAR PRASAD, son of Patchhu Mahto, resident of Village – Khanapur, Post – Khushrupur, Police station – Ekangarsarai, District – Patna. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 3. Shri Harihar Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, C/O Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Kamla Lal Srivastava. For the State : Mr. Ram Subhas Singh, AC to AAG-6. _____ 03. 27.7.2010 Petitioner was working as a stenographer under the respondent State of Bihar, specially the Commercial Taxes Department. He was a permanent employee who had to be proceeded against because he defied the order of transfer issued by the department. He was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was drawn up. Finding of defiance of the order of transfer was there. Petitioner pleaded that he was suffering from tuberculosis and that was the reason why there was a delay in following the order of transfer. He prayed before the authorities to take a lenient view of the matter as subsequently he accepted the order of transfer and joined the post of transfer. The authorities in the given circumstances despite the finding of disobedience, took a lenient view and imposed minor punishment of censor. The other punishment was that the petitioner would not be entitled to payment of any other allowance except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present writ application. 2. In addition to that he has also a grievance against the 2 order contained in Anneuxre-6, which is dated 27.4.1996. Though the petitioner has termed it as a punishment but reading of Annexure-6 does not show that it is by way of punishment. It is only a clarificatory order on the issue of validity of grant of two increments to the petitioner for the period of suspension which was wrongly given to him and the entry made in his service book to that extent required correction. 3. Taking into consideration that the findings are against the petitioner and a minor punishment came to be imposed upon him, the authorities have already taken a mild view of the issue and there is no occasion to interfere with the said order contained in Annexure-5 or the so-called clarificatory order contained in Anneuxre-6. 4. In absence of any legal infirmity and the orders being in conformity with facts and issue, no interference is warranted. 5. Writ is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)