WP(C) 3470/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Tanti , learned Standing Counsel, Inland Water Transport Department. I have also heard Ms Dutta, learned counsel representing the Transport Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the responde nts to promote him to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. There is a crim inal case pending against him. The said case is Special Case No.2/2006 pending i n the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati. Mr. Mahanta, learned coun sel for the petitioner submits that since there is delay in finalization of the criminal case, the petitioner be promoted subject to the outcome of the said cri minal case. On the other hand, Mr. B. Tanti, learned Standing Counsel, I.W.T. Department sub mits that since there is serious charge against the petitioner and he has been c harge sheeted in the said case i.e. Special Case No.2/2006, there is no question of giving him promotion, which, if given, will be against the mandate of law. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Annex ure-3 order dated 28.1.2009 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.5103/2008, by which a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the d ecision of the Apex Court reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 (Union of India v. K.V. J anaki Raman). That was the case in which the petitioner was denied promotion al though he was not charge sheeted. Such denial on the part of the respondents was during the pendency of the vigilance enquiry. In Janaki Raman (supra), the Apex Court held that a departmental enquiry and/or criminal proceeding can be said to be pending only when charge-memo has been issued and/or the concerned employe e has been charge-sheeted respectively. It has been held that mere pendency of a vigilance case will not be a ground for denial of promotion. Unlike the aforesaid situation, in the instant case, the petitioner has already been charge-sheeted in the criminal case and thus, the said order dated 28.1.20 09 passed in WP(C) No.5103/2008 based on decision of Janaki Raman (supra) cannot help the case of the petitioner. The said order and for that matter, the case in Janaki Raman (supra) is not at all applicable to the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, the direction as prayed for, cannot be issued. Consequent ly, the writ petition is dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if t he petitioner is finally acquitted in the criminal case, the department may cons ider his case for promotion. If the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case , law will take its own course and no presumption can be drawn at this stage.