IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3932 of 2009 Pramod Kumar Shrivastava . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 19.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly urges that even if the order of punishment dated 25.1.2000 and which is the only surviving punishment left is accepted by the petitioner, the effect of censure and three increments with non- cumulative effect, both minor in nature lost their complete effect in 1998 as the entry was directed to be recorded in the character roll for the year 1994- 95. Moulding the submission and the relief sought it is submitted that unless there is fresh order of punishment or a previously operating order of punishment, the petitioner cannot be denied consideration for promotion merely because his appeal may be pending. For all practical purposes, the appeal has become infructuous in view of the punishment having operated its course. He next submits that any earlier orders for censure cannot be clubbed with the present order dated 25.1.2000 and each order of such punishment 2 has to be reckoned for the period of three years from the date of entry of censure in his character roll. The submission being purely in law, the respondents have not been able to urge any plausible legal ground in opposing to the same. The Court therefore holds that any punishment of censure against the petitioner prior to 25.1.2000 have to be read down to the period of three years from the date of entry in the character roll. The punishment dated 25.1.2000 losses its effect in 1998. Unless there is any previously operating order of punishment or a fresh imposition of punishment after 1998, there can be no impediment to the consideration of the case of the petitioner for further promotions. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)