IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2018 of 2003 NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD, son of late Mehar Chand Prasad, resident of village& P.O. Nagarnausa, P.S. Nagarnausa, District Nalanda, at present residing at Sri Krishnapura B. … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat (Vishwesharai Bhawan) Bailey Road, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna … Respondents. ----------- 7. 14.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Initially when this writ application was filed in the year 2003 on 24.2.2003 a prayer was made by the petitioner to the following effect: “I. A direction upon the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner on substantive basis to the post of Chief Engineer from the date he completed his „Kalawadhi‟ and became entitled for promotion in view of the fact that there was/ were already vacancy/ vacancies in the said cadre. Alternatively, the petitioner prays for a direction to promote him w.e.f. 28.7.1997 when person junior to him in the cadre of Superintending Engineer namely Dr.C.K.Singh was promoted on substantive basis vide Government notification No. 4908(3) dated 2 28.7.97. II. For a further direction upon the respondents to consider his case for grant of further promotion to the post of Engineer-in-chief on the basis of consequential seniority upon grant of preceding relief in accordance with different circulars of the Government. III. For a direction to pay him all consequential benefits accruing therefrom including the salary admissible to the post.” It is not in doubt that the petitioner has retired during the pendency of this writ application on 28.2.2003 i.e. only four days after filing of the writ application. Obviously the petitioner was only trying to get some more salary and consequential higher pension if his prayer for promotion was allowed because the petitioner very well knew that his order of promotion was not going to be issued in four days. During the pendency of this writ application the respondents have initiated a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules by framing a charge on 3 12.8.2006. Such memo of charge having been brought on record by I.A.No. 3664/2009, amendment in the prayer of the writ application has also been made to the following effect: “(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against this petitioner after a gap of almost three and half years from the date of his retirement for alleged irregularity being committed by the petitioner, which he was posted as Muzaffarpur Circle. (ii) For further issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction upon the respondents to conclude the said departmental proceeding which is still pending despite clear guidelines as laid down in the Govt. circulars as well as in various order of this Hon‟ble Court.” For the reasons mentioned in the I.A. application the prayer for additional relief is allowed and I.A. No. 3664/2009 shall form part of the records of this writ application. In the changed scenario counsel for the petitioner would submit that even when 4 the petitioner has already filed his explanation to the aforementioned memo of charge the departmental proceeding has not been concluded, as a result whereof when the case of the petitioner and similarly situated persons either senior or junior to him for promotion against the post of Chief Engineer was considered in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 13.4.2007, it was only account of pendency of the said proceedings in terms of memo of charge dated 12.8.2006 that his case for promotion has been kept under sealed cover. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, would submit that this Court should direct for promotion of the petitioner irrespective of pendency of the departmental proceeding, inasmuch as for a period of two years and 10 months no action has been taken against the petitioner. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with regard to the earlier pleadings in the counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit would submit that there are serious charges of financial irregularity against the petitioner which 5 led the Government to initiate a proceeding in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Counsel for the State, therefore, would submit that if the petitioner has already filed his explanation and does not intend to lead any further evidence in the departmental proceeding, such proceeding can be concluded within a period of four months. In the opinion of this Court the petitioner had not assailed the memo of charge in the year 2006 when it was framed against the petitioner and had participated in the proceeding by filing his show cause and therefore, the prayer made in I.A.No. 3664/2009 for quashing of the departmental proceeding at this belated stage must be and is hereby rejected. However, the second part of the prayer of the petitioner in the said I.A.No. 3664/2009 with regard to issuing a direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding must be allowed as no pensioner is supposed to keep on running the corridor of Secretariat for getting his pensionary benefit finalized by keep on waiting for the result of the departmental 6 proceeding. The petitioner in fact has an additional reason for an expeditious disposal of the departmental proceeding because his promotion also now has been made dependent on the out come of this departmental proceeding, inasmuch as D.P.C. has kept one post reserved and kept the decision for promotion in a sealed cover by making it subject to final outcome of the departmental proceeding. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the respondents to ensure that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the resolution dated 12.8.2006 must be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Enquiry Officer in the said proceedings would give liberty of hearing to the petitioner and if the petitioner wants to lead any evidence in his defence the same must be taken on record and the Enquiry Officer must submit his enquiry report within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, whereafter 7 necessary orders in terms of Rule 43(b) must be passed by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of the enquiry report. Once a final decision is taken in the said proceedings, the respondents would also be obliged to consider the case of promotion in terms of the decision already taken by the D.P.C. in its meeting held on 13.4.2007. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/