IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11890 of 2002 ANIL KUMAR Versus MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS ----------- 11 31.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent-Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. The claim in this writ application is to direct the Respondent-Bank to allow the petitioner to appear in the forthcoming selection process (written and interview) for promotion in Scale II Officer in Group A. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 6.4.2002 with regard to certain acts on his part for the period 5.3.2001 till 28.2.2002. After he replied to the same, departmental proceedings were initiated against him when final orders of punishment were passed on 5.6.2002 The punishment was stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this process of selection for promotion to Scale II, and his eligibility for consideration arose on 31.3.2002. On that day, no charges had been framed against the petitioner. The show cause itself was issued on 6.4.2002 and charges served thereafter. He, therefore, submits that on 2 the date of eligibility there being no departmental proceeding against the petitioner, there was no justification to deny him consideration. He next relies upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in 1999(1) PLJR 391 (Dhirendra Nath Saha v. State of Bihar & ors.) to submit that once he has been visited with punishment in the departmental proceeding, to deny him promotion on basis of such punishment shall amount to imposition of a double punishment, which is not permissible in law. Learned counsel, however, fairly concedes that the order of punishment dated 5.6.2002 has attained finality and was never questioned by the petitioner before any legal forum. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that show cause notice on 6.4.2002 and the consequent charge sheet/departmental proceedings are not the events subsequent to the date of eligibility i.e. 31.3.2002 when in fact they related to events commencing from 5.3.2001 till 28.2.2002. The issuance of the show cause notice of the departmental proceedings was only a culmination of the same. He, however, fairly concedes that in accordance with Rules relating to disqualification the petitioner is eligible to be considered for the next promotion exercise and fresh vacancies after 31.3.2002, but in accordance with law only. 3 This Court does not find substance in the submission of the petitioner that he was a person with no blemish as on the date of his eligibility i.e. 31.3.2002. Learned counsel for the Bank is right in his submission that the petitioner was already under a cloud. The process of deciphering the need for proceeding against him in disciplinary jurisdiction arose as early as 5.3.2001 when events continued up till 28.2.2002. It is, therefore, apparent that the materials against him constitute the events prior to the date of eligibility. Merely because there may have been a reasonable passage of time when the Bank was dwelling upon the same of the manner to proceed and issued him a show cause notice within days of the date of the eligibility shall not vest in the petitioner a claim that as on the date of eligibility i.e. 31.3.2002 he was a man without blemish when the departmental proceeding ultimately ended up in punishment which remained unchallenged. The case of Dhirendra Nath Saha (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is also misconceived. It related to a departmental proceeding initiated in 1988 and punishment imposed in 1991, which was sought to be taken into consideration while considering his case for promotion in 1994 denying him such promotion. It was in that context that a Bench of this court held that earlier punishment given to the 4 petitioner therein was a different issue having run its course and could not be invoked to deny promotion subsequently as that would amount to imposition of a double penalty. The case relied upon is completely distinguishable on facts from that applicable in the present case. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the claim of the petitioner of his entitlement to be considered for such promotion as on 31.3.2002. Nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an impediment in consideration of the case of the petitioner for such promotion to Scale II in any promotion exercise subsequent and afresh to 31.3.2002 but of course in accordance with law. This writ application has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observation. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)