IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13071 of 2009 SITA RAM SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2009 by which he has been denied the benefit of the first and second A.C.P. claimed to be admissible with effect from 9.8.1999. It is submitted that a departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner in 1994 and he was suspended on 20.1.1994. Barely months latter on 4.9.1994, the order of suspension was revoked. The departmental proceedings remained inconclusive and the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2009. The departmental proceedings therefore automatically came to an end after the master servant relationship was severed. The rules regulating grant of A.C.P. in Rule 4(v)(ii) provides for withholding of the benefit of A.C.P. in pursuance of the orders passed in a departmental proceedings. Learned counsel for the State submits that an F.I.R. has also been lodged against the petitioner in 1994 but fairly acknowledges that the criminal proceeding still remained pending. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is completely silent, if any appropriate orders in accordance with law have been passed on the pending departmental proceedings, if it could have been so done much belatedly in the year 2009. This court finds it difficult to accept the contention of the respondents that the 2 departmental proceedings initiated in 1994 pending inconclusive till January, 2009 shall be deemed to continue in absence of any specific orders. This Court is further satisfied that the rules regulating grant of A.C.P. provided for withholding of the same only in pursuance of the order in a departmental proceedings. Even otherwise, this Court has serious reservation if the mere pendency of an inconclusive trial from 1994 would be sufficient justification to withhold the benefit of A.C.P. which in any event does not even amount to a substantive promotion but is only the grant of certain additional increment in the same pay scale. Viewed from any consideration, this Court finds the impugned order dated 16.1.2009 wholly devoid of reason or sustainable in law. The same is accordingly set aside. To uphold the impugned order would be giving latitude to the respondents themselves for their own inaction in not concluding the departmental proceedings in time for which they were well empowered in law even to proceed ex-parte also even if their contention of alleged non-cooperation by the petitioner unsubstantiated by facts in the counter affidavit is accepted for argument sake. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)