SHIV SHANKAR PD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought directions (i) to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to junior selection grade in the pay scale of 3000 -4500 per month with effect from 27.10.1991, the date on which his juniors are alleged to have been so promoted (ii) to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on regular basis to post of Bihar Agriculture Grade I (Agronomy) with effect from 12.10.1993, the date from which the batchmates or juniors of the petitioners were so promoted. The petitioner has also sought direction for payment of arrears of salary for the period of his suspension and through a supplementary petition he has sought quashing of order dated 1.10.1997 contained in Annexure -20 by which he was repatriated to his parent department with reference to an order dated 3.3.1994 contained in Annexure -13.

(2.) TH petitioner is in Bihar Agriculture Service Grade II. It appears that on account of a departmental proceeding then pending, the petitioner was not given promotion to junior selection grade in time when such promotion was granted to persons of his batch and also to some of his juniors by orders contained in Annexures 5 and 6. The order dated 1.6.1994 contained in Annexure -4 shows that the petitioner was finally exonerated in that departmental proceeding. The claim of petitioner for getting timely promotion in junior selection grade, however, remained pending without any final decision. In the meantime, it appears that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice with regard to another proceeding on 26.7.1993 and was placed under suspension on 9.11.1993. Thereafter, awaiting the findings of the enquiry officer by order dated 3.3.1994 as contained in Annexure -13 the petitioner was released from suspension but apparently as an interim measure it was indicated in that order that the petitioner should not be posted on any administrative post. The findings of the enquiry officer dated 18.4.1994 as contained in Annexure - 16. show that the enquiry officer, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur did not find any of the charges proved against the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority, unfortunately, does not appear to have taken any final decision with regard to this departmental proceeding so far and on that account, the petitioner was denied regular promotion in Grade 1 of his service when such promotion was granted to batchmates and his juniors by order dated 26.4.1995.

(3.) HAVING considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is not much dispute between the parties in this case. On behalf of the State it could not be shown that any final decision has been taken in the departmental proceeding for which the findings in favour of the petitioner were communicated by the enquiry officer through Annexure -16 dated 18.4.1994. In such situation, in my view, merely on account of pendency of such old departmental proceeding the case of the petitioner for grant of junior selection grade and regular promotion in Grade 1 of his service cannot be kept pending indefinitely. So far as challenge to the order dated 1.10.1997, Annexure -20, is concerned, in my view, a mere reference to Annexure -13 is not of much consequence and it is well established in law that no employee on deputation has a right to continue on deputation unless and until the terms of deputation so provide. In this case since no such term has been brought to the notice of the Court hence, petitioner cannot claim a right to continue on deputation and accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the order contained in Annexure -20.