IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10013 of 2005 HANS RAJ SINGH son of Late Hiraman Singh, at present retired as Technical Advisor, Canal Circle Saharsa Department of Water Resources, Distt. Saharsa.. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. Joint Secretary, Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. … Respondents ----------- 2. 04.01.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application, the petitioner has claimed following reliefs:- (i) an appropriate writ in the nature of writ certiorari for quashing the notifications memo no. 2557 dt. 22.8.1997 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar (Respondent no. 5) as contained in Annexure-4, whereby and whereunder a punishment of censure of the year 1997-98 and denial of 10% salary of the suspension period i.e. 24.8.95 to 22.8.97 has been imposed may be issued. (ii) Consequent upon quashing of the aforesaid notification vide memo no. 2557 dated 22.8.97 as contained in Annexure-4 the respondent may be directed to make payment of full salary for the period of suspension.” It appears that earlier also the petitioner for the same relief had moved this 2 Court in CWJC No.13595 of 2003 and the same was dismissed by this court vide order dated 7.4.2004 making an observation that the order of the year 1997 could not have been assailed in the year 2003 and that the petitioner, if so aggrieved, could ventilate his grievance by filing an appeal. The appeal filed by the petitioner as per paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit has been rejected. Respondents, however, have not enclosed the copy of appellate order in the counter affidavit. The disposal of appeal and the consequential appellate order would give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner and therefore this writ petition on the face of record must be held to have become infructuous. It is accordingly, dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to assail the appellate order which has definitely merged with the impugned order of punishment. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)