DEVI KANT THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction commanding the respondents to promote him on the post of Chief Engineer with effect from the date when his Juniors have been promoted as Chief Engineer in the same Depart- ment and further, for a direction to the respondents to grant all legal and consequential benefits including the financiai benefits attached to the post and to pay the arrears as well as current salary forthwith and also for any other relief or reliefs, for which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The petitioner entered the service of the then Irrigation Department, now water Resources Department in the year 1960 as an Assistant Engineer and subsequently was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 1974 and to the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 1990 with effect from 1986. It is stated that in the year 1992 the name of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the out of Chief Engineer and before taking final decision the Vigilance Clearance was sought for on 21-6-92 from the Vigilance Department. It is alleged that the Vigilance Department, instead of according clearance for promotion of the petitioner initiated a case against him on 24-6- 92 bearing Vigilance P.S. case No. 27/92 under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act only to debar him from promotion on the post of Chief Engineer, which is still pending against him. According to the petitioner, on 29-9-92 the Vigilance Department sent report that a vigilance case is pending against him and as such, his case was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, even though no charge-sheet was submitted against him till that date. On 17- 11-94 the petitioner was placed under suspension in connection with the said vigilance case and subsequently, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. On 21-11-94 some of this juniors were promoted on the post of Chief Engineer vide annexure-2.

(3.) The petitioner moved this Court against the order of suspension and also prayed for direction to consider his case for promotion in C.W.J.C. No. 11516 of 94, which was finally disposed of, vide order dated 16-2-95 con- tained in annexure-3. The Court directed the respondent No. 1 to start departmental proceeding against the petitioner by framing charge(s) and serve the same oh him. The Court further directed that the petitioner will take part in the departmental proceeding, which shall be concluded as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months and that if the petitioner did not choose to co-operate in the departmental proceeding, it will be open to the respondent to conclude the same. Further, it was ordered that if the departmental proceeding was not concluded within the aforesaid time, the order of suspension will automatically stand revoked, but it will be open to the respondent-State to proceed with the departmental proceeding thereafter. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner relating to promotion, the Court directed that the matter may be dealt separately. Thereafter the charges were framed against the petitioner and be submitted his show cause, but the proceeding was not concluded despite his co-operating in the enquiry, as claimed by him. After the expiry of four months the petitioner submitted his joining on 28-6-95 which was not accepted and the petitioner moved this Court in M.J.C. No. 1686 of 95 for initiating contempt proceeding. Thereafter the Joint Secretary of the department (respondent No. 4) vide memo No. 1812 dated 29-8-95 communicated \ the government order revoking the order of the suspension of the petitioner from 24-6-95 in view of the order passed by this Court in the writ case. On the same date, by another order departmental proceeding was stayed till the disposal of the criminal case. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent-State cannot debar him from promotion pending-disposal of criminal case. The petitioner also alleged that in similar circumstance the department promoted one Shyamnan- dan Pd. Sharma (retired) to the post of Chief Engineer with effect from 1-2-93, though criminal case was pending against him. Under the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioners has alleged hostile and discriminatory attitude of the department in the matter of promotion of the petitioner, which has been withheld since 1992.