IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20021 of 2011 1. Md. Shamim Son Of Late Md. Abdul Quddus Resident Of Village- Tehti, P.S.-Marhaura, District-Saran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General And Inspector General Of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Personnel), Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Darbhanga Region, Darbhanga. 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Darbhanga. 6. The Superintendent, Vigilence Department, Patna. ---------------------------------- 2. 13.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, an Inspector in the Vigilance Department, is aggrieved by the order dated 20.6.2011 passed by the Director General of Police (Headquarters) granting him promotion with effect from 3.8.2005 on the aforesaid post but denying him the monetary benefits except from the date of joining. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding. The enquiry report exonerated him. The respondents did not proceed on any difference of opinion but accepted the enquiry report. Satisfied with the absence of any justification to deny promotion, formal orders dated 20.6.2011 were issued thereafter. The petitioner was denied promotion for no fault of his and therefore is entitled to all arrears along with ACP from the date of promotion. The departmental proceeding is stated to have been initiated against the petitioner in the year 2005 itself. It cannot therefore be said simplicitor that the promotion was unjustifiably delayed. The pendency of the departmental proceeding was undoubtedly a good ground in the law to withhold the promotion. The exoneration in the departmental 2 proceeding does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the proceedings themselves were without any justification in the law. The view taken by this Court is fortified by the letter dated 20.5.2011 of the DIG (Provisions), that the departmental proceedings themselves were conducted contrary to the law. The material witnesses and the eye witnesses were not produced for examination. Quite obviously there was some person in the house helping out the petitioner in the departmental proceeding. If the petitioner now claims arrears of salary from the date of promotion consequent to the exoneration in such a proceeding, why should the government bear the loss for the dereliction in discharge of duty by its officers concerned who did not conduct the departmental proceeding properly. The petitioner claims salary for the promoted post during a period he never worked on the same. Let the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary be considered in light of the aforesaid discussion. Let an enquiry be held, responsibility fixed for such faulty departmental proceeding and the arrears of wages that may have to be paid to the petitioner be recovered from the concerned and then paid to him. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)