BAL MUKUND JHA Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board, He was posted as Personnel Officer. He retired from service with effect from 31 -12 -1996. The petitioner filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6551/96 making prayer therein to grant him promotion on the post of Deputy Director (Personnel) as junior to him was granted promotion. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20 -4 -1998, Annexure -2. The relevant portion of the order is quoted here -in -below:

(2.) THE case of the petitioner was not being considered and as such petitioner filed M.J.C. for initiating contempt proceeding. The said M.J.C. was disposed of vide Annexure -3. In the meantime pursuant to the order of this Court, Annexure -2, the competent authority passed order and found the petitioner not fit for promotion. The said order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8 -2 -2001, Annexures -1. The petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure -1 in this writ petition. It appears from the order, Annexure -2, that while disposing of the writ petition Secretary of respondent -Board was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next promotional post within a period of three months from the date of service of copy of the order upon the said respondent. Therefore, the said order cannot be takeaas it is direction to promote the petitioner. It appears from, the order, Annexure -1, that the case of the petitioner was considered and while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion it has been pointed out that in the year 1992 -93 he was given advance to the tune of Rs. 60,000, but no account was given by the petitioner. Ultimately Rs. 45,856 was deducted from his salary and rest had been ordered to be recovered in 20 instalments. Thus the authority did not find him fit for promotion. It is well established rule of law that for grant of promotion competent authority is required to see the entire service record of the employee and on the basis of service record competent authority has to decide as to whether he is fit for promotion or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, says that it was not connected with the duty of the petitioner, but the fact remains that advance was given to the petitioner but he did not furnish the account of the said amount and recovery was made. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, says that in the writ petition averment has been made that the respondent -Board has no authority to initiate departmental proceeding against the retired person. In my view, the said point is not involved in this case as from the order, Annexure -1, it does not appear that any proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner after retirement. It is merely a question of consideration for promotion. Therefore, I do not find any reason to give any finding with regard to a point which is not relevant for the purpose.