IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19224 of 2011 1. Rama Kant Ram S/O Late Deo Narain Ram R/O Village- Ruia Bangra, P.S.- Jiradei, District- Siwan………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Home Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Personnel and Administration Reforms Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The Zonal Inspector General of Police, Patna Zone, Patna 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance, Bihar, Patna 6. The Deputy Inspector General, Human Rights, Bihar, Patna 7. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna 8. The Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. (Head Quarters), Patna …..….Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Amitesh Kumar For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to AAG-13 ----------- 2. 04-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. In this case, a limited prayer has been made by the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police may be directed to relieve the petitioner for joining on his promoted post of Inspector in C.I.D. The petitioner has further stated that a criminal case as well as departmental proceeding was initiated against him and in the criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges whereas in the departmental proceeding he was punished as the charge was proved by the punishment order i.e. Annexure-5 to the writ petition which has been passed on 09.03.2005 by which two increments have been stopped. The petitioner has stated that he has been 2 promoted to the post of Inspector, C.I.D. vide memo. No. 254 dated 20.1.2004 in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-. The petitioner has also made a representation stating therein that though the petitioner has been promoted but the Superintendent of Police, Gaya has not relieved him to join the promoted post. The petitioner in paragraph-12 has specifically stated that though the petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police (S.S.P.), Patna for being relieved to enable him to join the promoted post of Inspector, C.I.D., Patna but S.S.P. refused to relieve the petitioner. In support of this contention the petitioner has annexed the letter No. 868 of 2004 dated 31.1.2004 from which it appears that the petitioner and others were refused to be relieved from the post on account of pendency of departmental proceeding. It appears from the Annexure-5 that the order of punishment has already been passed against the petitioner vide Letter dated 09.3.2005, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The moment order has been passed it cannot be said that the departmental proceeding will be in continuation and can be ground for refusing to relieve the petitioner. Now the petitioner has filed a representation vide Annexure-6 application dated 12.12.2005 to the S.S.P., Patna to relieve the petitioner to 3 enable him to join the promoted post. The representation has been filed on 12.12.2005 but the S.S.P., Patna is sitting tight over the matter. It was expected that the S.S.P., Patna that the moment it was before him, he ought to have considered his case and passed the reasoned order but he has not taken cognizance of his representation. Had the S.S.P., Patna considered his representation then the petitioner would not have been compelled to approach this Court. The view expressed in earlier paragraph is related to closure of departmental enquiry and it is no way concerned to entitlement of promotion. In this view of the matter, the S.S.P., Patna is directed to pass a reasoned order on the grievance raised in Anneure-6 to the writ petition within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In this view of the facts, this petition is disposed of. Mkc/ (Shivaji Pandey, J.)