IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7926 of 2011 Jagat Narayan Paswan, Son of Ram Balak Paswan, Resident of Village Thana Bigha, Police Station Ghoshi, District Gaya, at present posted as Assistant Jailor, Divisional Jail, Siwan. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Inspector General (Prison), Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director Administration, Home (Prison) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Jail Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Siwan. 5. Ramesh Prasad, Jailor, Divisional Jail, Nawada. 6. Dharmendra Kumar, Jailor, Divisional Jail, Madhepura. …..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhakar Singh, Advocate. Mr. Rabindra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, A.C. to A.A.G. -15. ---------------------------------- 03/ 30.08.2011 Juniors to the petitioner have been given promotion to the post of Jailor by virtue of notification contained in Annexure- 2. Petitioner an Assistant Jailor submits that he too is entitled for promotion but his case was not considered or ignored which forced him to file the present writ application, seeking a direction. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, by virtue of Annexure-4 I.G. Prison vide order dated 23.03.2010 decided to issue a warning (Chetawani) in the background that an under trial prisoner tried to escape on the night of 27/28th of August, 2009. 2 Respondent authorities issued a show cause to the petitioner, if he had something to offer by way of an explanation. Show cause is Annexure-3. Show cause filed is Annexure-3/1. Since the explanation did not satisfy the respondents Annexure-4 came into existence. It seems that ‘Chetawani’ was treated as a kind of punishment, minor in nature which came in the way of promotion of the petitioner. Respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit and explain the reason as to why the petitioner’s claim for promotion was ignored. According to them when the case of promotion of all eligible persons were under consideration, petitioner was not fit for consideration in light of existence of Annexure-4. Since the effect of the punishment subsisted, petitioner could not claim promotion as a matter of right, even though juniors had been extended that benefit. Initially, Counsel for the petitioner made a submission that if a look is had at Bihar State Government (CCA Rules, 2005) ‘Chetawani’ is not listed as one of the 3 punishment, much less a minor one. The word used in the rule is Nindan or censor. Since the word ‘Chetawani’ was not included in the Rule 2005 under the category of a punishment, existence of Annexure-4 would not make any difference to the petitioner’s claim for promotion. Submission of the Counsel for the petitioner would have merited consideration provided an amendment to the said Rule was not already in place, which is the 3rd amendment brought about in the year 2010, which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The said amendment does take cognizance of the fact that the word ‘Chetawani’ was not incorporated as one of the punishments in the year 2005 Rules. However since such a word is being used by disciplinary authorities and are entered in the service books then such a word has to be treated as a kind of punishment which will have effect of at least one year. The amendment further clarifies as to what will the effect if there are more than one entries of ‘Chetawani’ in the service book of an employee. Bar can be extended up to five 4 years in case of five entries of Chetawani in the service book of an employee. By virtue of the present amendment brought to the notice of this Court it cannot be the case of the petitioner that no reason existed for denying him promotion when matter of promotion was taken up by the DPC. But it is also a fact that such a Chetawani, which one entry, based on Annexure-4, will subsist only for a year, if there are no other entries of such kind in operation against the petitioner. Petitioner surely has a right to claim consideration for promotion after the effect of Annexure-4 runs its course. Since Annexure-4 is dated 23.03.2010, Counsel for the petitioner is correct in stating that the effect of Annexure-4 will run its course by 22nd of March, 2011. The writ application therefore, is disposed of with a direction upon the respondents that the case of the petitioner would be now placed before the DPC when it is convened the next time round and promotion to the post of Jailor which the petitioner is looking for would be considered and decided 5 on due priority. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above with a rider that this position will hold so long as Annexure-4’s exist and subsist if any challenge is made to Annexure-4 that will be yet another issue for which the petitioner has to decide. kksinha/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)