IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2287 of 2011 Swami Nath Prasad SON OF LATE KRISHNA DEO PRASAD RESIDENT OF A-6, ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. ASHIANA NAGAR, P.S. RAJIV NAGAR, PATNA. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. R. N. Mukhopadhay. For the State :- Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG IX & Mr. Md. Kamil Akhtar, A.C. to AAG IX ----- 5 22/07/2011 Petitioner is claiming substantive promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. His case for promotion was considered in the year 1999 and 2004 by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in absence of clear inputs as to the status of one Roh P.S. Case No. 24/85 his case was deferred. Submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though this case was filed against him more than 25 years ago, but in absence of any grant of sanction for prosecution, no cognizance was taken of the case and the matter stood still, if not dead, for all practical purposes. There is nothing against the petitioner besides this so called ghost of Roh police case. The petitioner had been granted vigilance clearance when his case was - 2 - considered earlier. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State, the same facts are repeated that the authorities are trying to find out the status of Roh police case and no sooner they have the requisite inputs with regard to the said case, they will put up the case of the petitioner before the Departmental Promotion Committee for substantive promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. It is a case of sheer apathy and inaction on the part of the State. There is clear assertion on behalf of the petitioner that this case did not go beyond the institution of the first information report. The ghost of this police case cannot keep on haunting the petitioner all his life merely because the respondents are not in a position to obtain information, even though it is within their domain. Law on this score is rather clear that only if there is a case pending either criminal or any other case against the petitioner, the case of such an employee would be put in a sealed cover but even that has not been done in the present case. Obviously, the petitioner is being made to suffer because the respondents are not concerned about - 3 - his career and future by walking the extra mile by obtaining status of Roh police case. In the above stated circumstance, the Court is left with no option but to give a direction to the respondents that they will place the case of promotion of the petitioner before the Departmental Promotion Committee in the very first meeting which will be held now in this regard and his case would be considered with due priority. The decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee will govern the issue with regard to promotion of the petitioner and the respondents shall not use pendency of Roh police case as an excuse for not doing so unless they can produce substantive evidence before the Departmental Promotion Committee that this case has gone beyond the institution of the first information report and something substantive has happened in relation to the said case. This writ application is allowed with the direction aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)