IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6632 of 2010 1. RAM LAKHAN PRASAD SINGH, S/O CHHOTAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE - HANUMAN NAGAR, P.S.- PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MR. BINAY KRISHNA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AT PRESENT AS JOINT SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION BUILDING, PATNA. 3. SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION BUILDING, PATNA. 4. SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RETIRED SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RESIDENT OF PATEL COLONY, NORTH OF N.M.C.H., PATNA RAILWAY LINE, PATNA. ----------- 2 07.01.2011 Petitioner had moved this Court earlier through CWJC No.13316 of 2004 challenging withholding of his promotion on account of pendency of some departmental proceeding. The stand of the respondents was that his case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the recommendations were kept in sealed-cover, pending conclusion of the departmental proceeding. The petitioner had taken a stand before this Court that the proceeding, said to have been initiated against him for omission and commission committed by him while posted in Jehanabad, was on account of an error of record as he was never posted in Jehanabad. When the case was taken up on 2 11.9.2006, learned counsel for the State was not in a position to assist the Court due to want of the instructions. However, it was stated that one criminal case which was instituted against the petitioner under Section 302 in the year 2000 was also pending. Since learned counsel for the State had not got instructions, this Court disposed of the writ application with direction to the Secretary, Water Resources Department to consider the representation of the petitioner and disposed of the same within three months. In the said order, this Court also observed that the promotion of the petitioner which was due in 1992 and the recommendations in respect of which were kept in sealed-cover could not be affected due to the criminal case which was instituted in the year 2000 only. In view of the said order of this Court the representation of the petitioner was considered and was rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary of the Water Resources Department by his order contained in memo no.602 dated 4.4.2007, copy whereof is Annexure-2 with the writ application. 3 From reading of the said order, it is clear that the ground of pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was clearly given up by the Department and his representation was rejected only on the ground that the criminal case was pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, through a supplementary affidavit the judgment passed by the trial court in the criminal matter to show that the petitioner has since been acquitted. In that view of the matter, the ground for withholding of promotion of the petitioner becomes completely non est. Though a counter affidavit has been filed in this case, but learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that since the petitioner has been acquitted in respect of all the criminal charges by the trial court, the case of the petitioner has to be considered now for promotion for which purpose the sealed-cover has to be opened and the recommendations of the Committee have to be taken into account for passing orders in accordance with law for his promotion from 4 the due date. In view of the fair stand of learned counsel for the respondents as well as statements made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit to that effect, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to open the sealed-cover containing the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of the petitioner and act upon the same positively within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)