IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3676 of 2010 1. NILIMA SINHA W/O K.K. SINHA, AT PRESENT CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER TOLLOTHU, P.S.- TILLOTHU, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER TO THE DEPTT. OF WELFARE GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRCTOR ICDS BIHAR INDRA BHAVAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPTT. OF WELFARE BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS AT SASARAM 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER DEHRI, ROHTAS ----------- 03. 29.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By order dated 6.7.2009 the petitioner along with four others was punished with ‘censure’ to be entered in the character roles for the year 2009 on allegations of alleged absence from the place of posting. Despite adjournment granted and the passage of more than eight months, no counter affidavit has been filed. The Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter any further. The second supplementary affidavit of the petitioner acknowledges that salary has been paid to all five including the petitioner punished by ‘censure’ as noticed above. The grievance now is limited to the punishment of ‘censure’ subsisting. If the petitioner was show caused for alleged absence from the place of posting and punishment of ‘censure’ dated 6.7.2009 was awarded on that count, but subsequently salary for 2 the period in question for allegedly remaining absent from the place of posting has been made, it is an incongruous situation. The punishment was imposed and salary withheld for absence from the place of posting, meaning thereby that the petitioner was not working. If salary for the period of punishment has been made, it stands to reason that the conclusion is she was present and working at the place of posting. If she was present at the place of posting, naturally the satisfaction is of her working leading to payment of salary. If that be so, the very substratum of the ground on which the punishment was founded vanishes. Punishment of ‘censure’ for absence and simultaneous payment of salary for the period of absence acknowledging discharge of duties cannot co-exist. The order of punishment dated 6.7.2009 has become redundant by the conduct of the respondents themselves. The writ application is allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)