IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1125 of 2003 AJIT KUMAR SAH, son of Late Mahabir Sah, resident of Clubganj, P.S. Mojahidpur, District Bhagalpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Inspector General of Police (Wireless) Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Wireless), Bihar, Patna 5. The Regional Inspector (Wireless) S.D.C., Bihar, Patna 6. The Astt. Of Inspector General (Wireless), Bihar, Patna, T.X.Building, Bailey Road, Patna, Rajbanshinagar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 4. 13.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “ This is an application for issuance of appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions for quashing the office order bearing No. 222/2002 vide Memo No. 500 dated 7.3.2002 passed by the respondent no.6 as contained in Annexure 2 whereby and whereunder the order of confirmation bearing No. 3/82 dated 5.1.82 given by respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure 1 has been set aside and further issuance of appropriate direction for determination of the seniority of the petitioner in accordance with law and/or issuance 2 of consequential writ or writs under the facts and circumstances of the case.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that whatever be the effect of punishment of reversion to literate Constable pursuant to a departmental proceeding held in the year 1976 vide departmental proceeding No. 5/1976, its effect got wiped up on expiry of a period of two years during which the petitioner had remained reverted on a lower post and was deprived salary of higher post. He would accordingly submit that when his seniority was restored by a subsequent order dated 5.1.1982 by the same authority who had earlier imposed him punishment in Departmental Proceeding No. 5/1976, the same authority was not entitled to ignore the aforementioned order dated 5.1.1982 or review the same and cancel the order of confirmation of the petitioner which will have an effect of losing seniority of a period of almost 21 years. As usual there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State and infact 3 a period of six years is also not good enough for the respondents to come out with their explanation. Counsel for the petitioner also is not in a position to produce the order of punishment passed in the aforementioned departmental proceeding No. 5/1976. The cloud therefore cannot be removed by either of the party. That being so, this Court without disturbing the impugned order would remit the matter back to a higher authority, namely, Inspector General of Police (Wireless), Bihar, (Respondent no. 3) Patna who without being prejudiced by the impugned order passed by the subordinate authority, A.I.G. (Wireless) (respondent no.6), would pass a fresh order on the representation of the petitioner claiming seniority and promotion on the higher post after looking into the records of departmental proceeding No. 5/1976 and do the needful strictly in accordance with law. In order to expedite the matter this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive 4 representation alongwith a copy of this order and respondent no.3 thereafter shall dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of three months of its receipt. Let it be however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it would be entirely open for respondent no.3 to take his independent decision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/