IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1569 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7557 of 2005 ====================================================== Suresh Kumar Sinha Son of Late Bachoo Singh Resident of Village- Dhondhary, P.S. Ghosi, District-Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director General of Police, Old Secretariat, Patna. 5. The D.I.G., Muzaffarpur. 6. The Additional Director General, Crime Investigation Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.N. Shahi, AAG-14 with Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, A.C. to AAG-14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 08-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 7557 of 2005, the writ petitioner has preferred the Patna High Court LPA No.1569 of 2011 (2) dt.08-11-2011 2 / 3 2 present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, a Government servant was, by order dated 9th June 2003 placed under suspension. While under suspension, by order dated 3rd September 2004, the appellant was promoted as an Under Secretary to the Government. The said order of promotion was later recalled on 27th April 2005. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 7557 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned single Judge has noted that the impugned order of recall of the order of promotion was made without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The order is made in violation of principle of natural justice. However, keeping in view the further developments that the criminal prosecution lodged against the appellant has been quashed in exercise of power conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the order of suspension has been revoked and; the appellant has been reinstated in service, the learned single Judge has reserved liberty to the appellant to make representation before the concerned authority. The concerned authority has been reserved liberty to make an order afresh as may be required. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Dinu Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned order dated 27th April 2005 of recall of the order of promotion was made in violation to the principle of natural justice and was thus void ab initio. The learned single Judge should have set aside the order dated 27th April 2005 and revived the order of promotion dated 3rd September 2004. He has submitted that the representation and reconsideration afresh will not compensate the prejudice caused to Patna High Court LPA No.1569 of 2011 (2) dt.08-11-2011 3 / 3 3 the appellant. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgments in the matters of Raj Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, [(2006 (4) PLJR 71]; and of Ramnandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, [1983 PLJR 266]. We do appreciate that the impugned order dated 27th April 2005 was made in violation of principle of natural justice. It may be noted that the very order of promotion made on 3rd September 2004 was wholly illegal as the appellant could not have been promoted as he was placed under suspension. The discretionary jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to set aside an order which will have the effect of reviving a totally illegal order. Besides, the cancellation of the promotion did not entail civil consequences as the appellant was already undergoing suspension. In view of the further development the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the appellant to make a representation and has rightly directed the respondents to consider such representation. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)