IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6990 of 2009 Kanhai Lal Paswan . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 29.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.9.2008. It cancels the first A.C.P. granted to him with effect from 9.8.1999 while preserving the second A.C.P. granted to him from 10.9.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by an order dated 24.10.2007, considering his date of appointment as 10.9.1977, first A.C.P. was granted from 9.8.1999 and second A.C.P. on 10.9.2001 after consideration of his service record by the Departmental Screening Committee. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no show cause notice was given prior to the issuance of the same. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 16.8.1973 in ad hoc capacity. On 18.9.1977 he was appointed substantively as a Lower Division Clerk. The ad hoc appointment cannot be taken into account to treat the subsequent substantive appointment as a promotion to deny A.C.P. 2 Counsel for the State submits from the impugned order that in no uncertain terms it states that the petitioner was appointed on 16.8.1973 as a Peon. He was promoted on 8.9.1977 as a Lower Division Clerk. Therefore if he was given a promotion in the first 12 years of his service he was not entitled to the grant of the A.C.P. In a writ petition the primary evidence consists of documents. The petitioner has not placed his letter of appointment as a Peon and/or on a Lower Division Clerk to enable this Court to adjudicate on basis of documentary evidence, the respective nature of the claims. There is no clear stand in the writ petition with regard to the nature of appointment on the post of peon or L.D.C. The Court therefore finds it difficult to presently interfere with the order dated 26.9.2008 on the simple premise that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice when the basic facts for the same remained unanswered. Even while the Court declines interference it observes that if the petitioner is able to demonstrate before the authorities that his appointment as a Peon was not substantive in nature and that he held no post and that he acquired the substantive appointment on a 3 post only on 8.9.1977, the Court expects the authorities to reconsider the question whether he could be presumed to have obtained promotion from the post of Peon to L.D.C. Much shall therefore depend on the nature of the order of appointment. It is expected that because this Court may not have been persuaded to interfere in absence of necessary information, that shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner on his representation if he is otherwise able to place necessary and relevant facts in context of the order dated 26.9.2008. Any such representation is expected to be disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observation. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)