IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4481 of 1994 LALL BABU LALL . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner : Shri Madan Mohan Pd. Shri Madhuban Kr., Adv. For the State : Rajesh Kr. Singh, Adv. ----------- 15/ 06/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner at the relevant point of time held the post of Deputy Director in the Department of Industries, Government of Bihar. He came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9109/92 with a claim to be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director in the Industries Department. The submission is that this claim was in context of his eligibility from 1.1.1991. A Division Bench of this Court on 19.8.1993 noticed the stand of the State that there was a vigilance enquiry pending against him since 21.4.1990. Relying on a government decision dated 6.8.1991, the respondents were directed to consider ad hoc promotion since the vigilance enquiry was pending for more than two years along with monetary benefits. The enquiry was to be finally decided within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court from the pleadings that there was, in fact, no departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner at any point of time. The pleadings, however, in this regard are not very specific. It was next submitted that the enquiry was being conducted by the Vigilance Department, but never culminated in the institution of any prosecution under the criminal law of the land. Again the pleadings are not very specific in the writ application. On record is a letter dated 5.10.1996 at Annexure-A to a supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents filed on 12.3.1997. It is a show cause notice given to the petitioner under Rule-139(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules for withholding 2 % of his pension. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out from paragraph-1 of the said order that it appears that there was a departmental proceeding with a report submitted consequent to which a second show cause notice had been given, replied to by the petitioner, whereafter the notice under Section-139(B) had been given. Learned counsel for the State, however, expresses his handicap, the matter being old, to make any further submissions except from that 3 already on record by way of counter affidavits. The facts of the case do not appear to be very clear and therefore this Court finds it difficult to pass any positive orders either in favour of the petitioner or against him. Directions are therefore given to the respondents to examine if at any point of time the petitioner had been visited with departmental proceeding. If he had been, the duration of the orders, the date of the service of charge-sheet, the claimed date of eligibility to be considered for promotion shall all become relevant for consideration in their contextual position. If there has been no formal departmental proceeding against the petitioner by service of a memo. of charge, proving the same in a departmental proceeding leading to an enquiry report, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced from consideration for substantive promotion to the post of Joint Director, Industries. If there was a vigilance enquiry against the petitioner, it had to culminate either in a departmental proceeding or the institution of a formal criminal prosecution. If it culminated in a formal criminal prosecution, the matter shall become entirely different and depend on the presently culminating or pending 4 of the criminal prosecution the order in C.W.J.C. No.9109/92 shall have to be given full effect. If the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal prosecution, the matter shall be entirely different. If a criminal prosecution has never initiated against him, the order in C.W.J.C. No.9109/92 shall have to be given full effect when the ad hoc promotion directed to be considered therein shall merge into his claim for eligibility of substantive promotion to the Joint Director, Industries from the due date. Let such consideration be done by the respondents and a reasoned and speaking order passed within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before them. It is expected that if the respondents find justification in his claim to be considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Industries, necessary consequential orders in all aspects including the revision of pension etc., but strictly in accordance with law, shall be done and an appropriate order issued within the like period. The application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)