IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.233 of 2009 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. Versus Ranjan Kumar Chauhan son of Sri Jiyalal Singh resident of Ward No. 6, Professor Colony, Nirmali, P.O. & P.S. Nirmali, District Supaul, the then posted as Executive Magistrate, S.D.M. Office, Barsoi, P.S. Barsoi, District Katihar. ----------- 3 24/03/2009 This appeal has been filed by the State appellants against the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8120 of 2006 by which the respondents-appellants have been directed to consider the case of the petitioner-respondent for grant of benefits of A.C.P. scheme from 2.6.2002 and take a final decision with consequential benefits within a period of three months from that date. The case of the petitioner-respondent is that he was appointed as Deputy Collector on 2.6.1990 and was confirmed as such on 30.7.1995. In 2007 he was informed that he cannot be granted A.C.P. because he was awarded the punishment of Censure in a departmental proceeding in the year 1993-94. It is also submitted that since a criminal case was instituted in the year 1993 vide Bariarpur P.S. Case no. 143/93 in which sanction for prosecution has been granted against the petitioner-respondent and that case is pending, he cannot be refused the benefit of A.C.P. scheme. But even - 2 - after 15 years there is no progress in the case. The learned Single Judge has held that the order of punishment of censure was issued in the year 1993-94 and he was confirmed on the post of Deputy Collector thereafter on 30.7.1995. It is also held that since the tenure of punishment was for three years which had also expired prior to the date from which the petitioner claims eligibility for the A.C.P. benefit, his case is fit to be considered for giving him the A.C.P. benefit. Learned counsel for the State appellants produced before us a copy of the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 and submits that the Rules talk of provision and the order for granting A.C.P. but the writ petitioner is not entitled for the 1st A.C.P. with effect from 2.6.2002 in view of punishment of censure in a departmental proceeding and pendency of a criminal case. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in this case the order of punishment of censure was issued in the year 1993-94 before he was confirmed. He was confirmed on the post of Deputy Collector on 30.7.1995. In view of the circumstances of this case and the peculiar facts, we are of the view that in such a trifle matter, no interference is called for in an intra court appeal. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (J. B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) - 3 - AMIN