IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.73 of 2009 Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Kishan Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village Angaru, Post Jharan, Pilua, P.S. Bausi, District Banka, Bihar……………………………….……………………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Sri Ajay B. Nayak, son of not known to the petitioner, at present posted as Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Sri Surya Narayan Das, son of not known to the Petitioner, at present posted as Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The State of Jharkhand. 5. Sri Ambika Baitha son of not known to the Petitioner, at present posted as Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar, Jharkhand. 6. Sri Raghubar Tiwari, son of not known to the Petitioner, at present posted as Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Deoghar, Jharkhand…………………Opposite Parties. ----------- 4 13.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties. A supplementary show cause has been filed on behalf of opposite party nos. 5 and 6 i.e. authorities of State of Jharkhand. Along with show cause, a final order of the Appellate Authority is enclosed as Annexure-R/4. By this order, the Principal Secretary has disposed of the appeal of the petitioner modifying the order of punishment of his dismissal 2 and substituting it with punishment of censure to be entered in his Annual Character Roll of 1990-91 and disentitling him from any other payment of his suspension period, except subsistence allowance. It is agreed at the Bar that since punishment order dated 09.09.2008 against which petitioner had filed writ application, stands modified by this appellate order, petitioner is entitled to be treated as reinstated in service with effect from 09.09.2008 with full salary in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises his objection to the punishment of disentitling him from any other payment of his suspension period except for subsistence allowance on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006 (4) PLJR 514. This question cannot be considered in a contempt proceeding. Therefore, this contempt application is disposed of with liberty 3 to the petitioner to challenge the said order of punishment imposed upon him by the appellate authority in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)