IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7329 of 2005 Ram Jivan Kumar S/o Late Kanti Prasad Kumar, Resident at village , P.O. Laugain Via- Sahkund, Dist. Banka at present posted as Junior Engineer, Irrigation Division no. 2,Barhet,Sahebganj,Jharkhand. --Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department,Bihar,Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Bihar,Patna. 3. The Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources Department, North Bihar, Irrigation Building, Patna. 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department,Muzaffarpur. 5. The State of Jharkhand through the Additional Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation Department) Govt. of Jharkhand. 6. The Chief Engineer, Deoghar, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department Govt. of Jharkhand. 7. The Superintending Engineer, Sahebganj, Irrigation Circle, Government of Jharkhand. 8. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division no.2 Barhet, Dist. Sahebganj. --Respondents. ---------------------------------- 07. 29.07.2011 Heard Mr. Ram Bilash Mahto, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and Mr. D. Mukharjee, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 26.07.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority in the Department of Water Resources as contained in memo no. 6140 dated 28.07.2003 (Annexure-12) whereby he has been inflicted minor punishment in the shape of censure (effective date 1998-1999). The said order treats his absence from service w.e.f. 17.02.1999 to 14.03.1999 as unauthorized but keeping in view the orders of the Government as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 he was directed to be paid for the said period. Learned counsel for the petitioner made diverse submissions in 2 support of the order. However, realizing the impact of the order of censure, learned counsel fairly admits that the issue has now become somewhat academic. In view of the nature of punishment passed under the impugned order and the aforesaid stand of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The application is disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )