IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5733 of 2006 OM PRAKASH SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 28.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner came to this Court with a prayer for consideration of his case for promotion to the rank of Surveillance Officer or equivalent post in the Bihar Agriculture Service Class II in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- (old) corresponding to Rs. 6500- 10500/- (new) by a notification dated 29.2.2002. Learned counsel submits that the departmental promotion committee as far back as 23.6.2001 declined to consider his case on the premise that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. The departmental proceeding initiated against him has also been dropped as is evident from the order of the Agriculture Director, Bihar, Patna dated 3.8.2007 as appended at Annexure-10. The Respondents have yet refused to consider his case compelling him to approach this Court. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. The counter affidavit affirmed on 22.9.2006 states that a departmental proceeding is being “conducted” against the petitioner. The supplementary counter affidavit affirmed on 25.7.2008 (after the order dated 3.8.2007 at Annexure-10 to the rejoinder) by the Deputy Agriculture Director (Extension), Bihar, the deponent of the earlier counter affidavit states - 2 - that after his acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner has been paid full salary of the suspension period when it was recorded that “the departmental proceeding is not going on”. It then states that the earlier decision dated 11.8.2006 for conducting a departmental proceeding has neither been withdrawn nor completed. Learned counsel for the State urged that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was still alive. That now the petitioner had been allocated to the State of Jharkhand consequent to the re-organization of the State of Bihar and, therefore, the issue of his promotion and the fate of the departmental proceeding was now to be decided by the successor State. To the query of the Court, learned counsel for the State very fairly stated that the genuineness and correctness of Annexure-10 dated 3.8.2007 issued under the pen of the Director, Agriculture is not denied or disputed. Learned counsel for the State fairly acknowledged that the supplementary counter affidavit is evasive and silent with regard to the Government order dated 3.8.2007. What the deponent of the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit seeks to do is, to virtually assail the order of the Government issued by a superior officer. Conscious of his limitation that he cannot do so, he chooses to file a supplementary counter affidavit in vague and evasive language. This Court was inclined to impose costs on him for his attempt to mislead this Court but refrains from doing so. The administrative issue which should have then come to an - 3 - end after 3.8.2007 has been sought to be kept alive for no rhyme or reason. The contention that the services of the petitioner has now been transferred to the State of Jharkhand is not relevant for the present as it pertains to a period prior to the reorganization of the State. From the order dated 3.8.2007 referred to above, it is apparent that the departmental proceeding was dropped and never achieved finality. In that view of the matter there is no impediment now in consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion. The Respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date his junior has been promoted under notification dated 29.2.2002 and take a final decision with regard to the petitioner 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 allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)