IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6184 of 2009 Munni Lal Rajak Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 28.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 23.78.2004 as affirmed in appeal on 8.10.2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment being contrary to the law, non speaking in nature, the appellate order suffering from the same vice, affecting his right to be considered for promotion, a continuing right, the delay is irrelevant. The Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner. The punishments are minor in nature. There is no allegation that no show cause was issued before final order came to be passed. That was the only requirement before imposition of a minor punishment. The punishment of censure was to be entered in the Character Roll for the year 2003-2004. The duration of the punishment being three years it lost its effect in 2007.The petitioner does not appear to have pursued the matter after his appeal was rejected till he filed the present writ application nearly four years later. Likewise withholding of two increments with non cumulative effect has also taken effect long back. To the Court entire issue has become academic. The Court is not inclined to adjudicate an academic issue. The contention that it was a continuing wrong is best answered that the petitioner has only himself to blame for the delay. The alertness which he has shown belatedly was for him to show after the order of punishment or after the appellate order. In the entirety considering the nature of the punishment imposed as minor, the laxity on the part of the petitioner in being vigilant in protection of his own interest and right, the Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)