KALICHARAN YADAV Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER joined the service as Engineer Assistant in the year 1961. Thereafter earned various promotions from time to time and retired on 31 st January, 1997 on attaining the superannuation as Electrical Superintending Engineer. During his service as Superintending Engineer, he remained posted at Dhanbad and was also burdened with the extra responsibility of the work of General Manager -cum -Chief Engineer etc. It is alleged that on the basis of his seniority he was entitled to be considered for promotion with effect from 26 th of June, 1996 on availability of vacancy of the Chief Engineer. The case of the petitioner came to be considered for promotion by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 25 th of June, 1996. He was approved for promotion being found fit subject to clearance of allegations. Despite being approved for promotion by the competent Departmental Promotion Committee, petitioner was not promoted and he eventually retired on 31" January, 1997. It is alleged that the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee was implemented vide Notification dated 1 st of February, 1997. Petitioner has made allegations against Respondent No. 3 that with a view to deprive the petitioner of his right of promotion to the post of Chief Electrical Engineer, the Notification was issued a day after the superannuation of the petitioner. Petitioner was also denied the post retinl benefits. He made representations and consequently final pension was sectioned in his favour. It is further alleged that with a view to deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioner, he was served with chargesheet on 19 th of November, 1998 i.e. after the date of his retirement. Petitioner while denying the charges levelled against him, stated that while discharging his duties as General Manager, he was required to function as quasi -judicial authority to decide cases pertaining to dispute between consumers an Respondent -Board under Clause -13 of the H.T. Agreement. Certain directions were issued by the High Court for disposal of those cases and it under the orders of the High Court that he has decided some cases

(2.) THE main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that at the time of his consideration for promotion, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and hence he could not have been deprived of his promotion on being found fit by the competent and duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee.

(3.) IN view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, denial of promotion to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of allegations is totally unwarranted. No legal disciplinary proceedings were pending against him disentitling him from promotion, despite found fit by the competent and duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee.