Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents inter alia to confirm his services of the petitioner as Assistance Sub-Inspector of police and promote him to the cadre of sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1975. He was promoted to the rank of S. I. by an order dated 14-4-1976. However, according to the petitioner he has not yet been confirmed in the post of Assistant sub-Inspector of Police, although one Sashi Kant Ojha who was promoted to the post of s. I. in the year 1977 has been confirmed in the services on 1-3-1979 and promoted to the post of sub-Inspector of Police on 1-3-1981. 2. In this case a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been contended that the departmentaly promoted police Officers are confirmed in the post after one year of service whose service records are found satisfactory and clear. 3. It has been stated : "for confirmation, permanent vacancies are calculated and arranged on state basis and officiating Assistant sub-Inspector are confirmed on the basis of State of Seniority. In the process an assistant sub-Inspector has to await in queiue for confirmation in the impugned case the service records of the petitioner was not found up to the mark. The petitioner had been paced under suspension vide Bhojpur D. O. No.3002/75, 25/79 and palamu Do Nos.1585/84, 2231/86, 1199/87, 10/88, 1983/88 and 802/91 on the charges contained in suspension orders relate to drunken state on duty and absconding without permission and leave. Bhojpur Departmental proceeding No.63/84, 25/87, 27/87, 63/88 and 101/88 were initiated against No.63/84, 25/87, 27/87 63/88 and 101/88 were initiated against the petitioner and he was found guilty of charges in all the proceedings moreover the proceeding No.4/89 and 126/91 are still pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has got thirteen punishments against six rewards till now. Thus it will appear that the petitioner has earned punishment more than double of rewards this speaks of unsatisfactory records of the petitioner because of this petitioner has not been confirmed in the rank of a. S. I. so far, since he has bad service so he cannot claim confirmation and subsequent promotion in the rank of sub-Insnec-tor of police as a matter of right " 4. It has also been contended that only those persons have been oromoted whose services records were found to be clear. 5. A rejoinder to the said counter-affidavit has been filed where with the petitioner has annexed various documents showing the awards given an punishmet imposed upon him which are contained in Annexures-3 and 4 series to the writ petition respectively. 6. As indicated hereinbefore, the first grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been confirmed in the post of S. I. and secondly he has not been promoted to the post of sub-Inspector of police. 7. So far as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned there is no doubt that the petitioner was promoted with effect from 14-9-1976 as is evident from Annexure-2/2 to the aforementioned rejoinder. 8. Rule 660 (b) of the Bihar Police Manual reads thus : - "rule 660 (b ).- Assistant sub-Inspectors promoted from the ranks shall be on probation for one year. " 9. In view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector of police in terms of the aforementioned Rule he should have either been confirmed with effect from 14-9-1977 qr his period of probation could have been extended. 10. There cannot be any doubt that in terms of the aforementioned provision, the period of probation is one year. The said period of probation was not extended in the case of the petitioner. The question as to whether a person is entitled to be confirmed upon expiry of the period of probation depends upon the statutory rules. 11. It has been suggested by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that officiating sub-Inspector of police are confirmed on the basis of state Seniority. Even if that be so for the purpose of confirming a person his performent during the period of probation should be taken into consideration although he may be confirmed from a letter date in view of the purported practice. 12. The respondents in their counter-affidavit has not stated as to whether the petitioner was not eligible for confirmation to the said post keeping in view his position in the seniority list. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner has contended that one Sashikant Ojha was promoted in the year 1977 and his services had been confirmed on 1-3-1979. 12. The respondents in their counter-affidavit has not stated as to whether the petitioner was not eligible for confirmation to the said post keeping in view his position in the seniority list. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner has contended that one Sashikant Ojha was promoted in the year 1977 and his services had been confirmed on 1-3-1979. The statements made by the petitioner in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition to this effect have not been denied but as indicated hereinbefore it has merely been pointed out that those persons have been promoted whose service records have been found to be satisfactory. A person cannot be denied confirmation in service of promotion only because there was certain charges against him or rewards received by him are lesser in number than than the punishments imposed. 13. The question as to whether a person would be entitled to promotion or not would depend upon the nature of punishment, the date of imposition of punishment and other relevant factors. At this juncture,it may be mentioned that a person is not to be denied his due promotion only because he was placed under suspension, although ultimately no order of punishment was passed against him. 14. From Annexure-3 series it appears that the petitioner was given rewards by the District Order No.135-79 (Annexure-3), 2241/79 (Annexure-3/1), District Order No.217/81 for his hard work on 14-1-1981 annexure 3/2), and District Order No.966/82 (Annexure-3/3) District order No.975/84 (Annexure-3/4) and District Order No.1828/91 (Annexure 3/5 ). 15. So far as the imposition of punishments upon the petitioner is concerned the relevant orders as contained in Annexure-4 series from a perusal of the said order it appears that by District Order No.339/81 he was awarded punishment of withholding of seven days salary on 1-9-1979. He was censured in a disciplinary proceeding being No.63/84 by D. O. No.1998/86 (Annexure-4/1 ). Again a punishment of censure were imposed upon him by D O. No.507/90 for his latches on 30th July, 1987. He has also been awarded a punishment of censure for his alleged misbehaviour with a truck owner in a drunken state on 2-11-1988 (An-nexure-4/3 ). It further appears that in terms of D. O. No.1668/87 (Annexure-4/4) the petitioner was again censured for his misbehaviour with his superior Officers and it has been directed therein that he would not receive any amount other the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. It further appears that in terms of D. O. No.1668/87 (Annexure-4/4) the petitioner was again censured for his misbehaviour with his superior Officers and it has been directed therein that he would not receive any amount other the subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. 16. The petitioner has contended that the aforementioned orders of punishment was awarded against him in the following proceedings. (i) Proceeding No.44/79 (ii) Proceeding No.63/84 (iii) Proceeding No.27/87 (iv) Proceeding No.63/88 (v) Proceeding No.101/88. " It has been stated that in proceeding No.27/87, no punishment was imposed against the petitioner. 17 It has father been contended that except proceeding No.44/79 all the proceeding were sterted after 1-1-1981. The petitioner has submitted that as he was entitled to promotion prior to 1-1-1981 he could not have been denied promotion as also confirmation in the post of assistant-Sub-nspector for alleged lapses on his part after 1981 particularly in view of the fact that no major punishment has ever been imposed upon him. 18. Rule 726 (iii) of the Bihar Police Manual reads as follows : - "rule 726 (HI ).- Disqualification for admission to a promotion list or retension thereon.- The infliction of any major punishment in any rank witnin the last 3 years may ordinarily be a bar to admission in any of the promotion lists. A gap of three years is necessary after the infliction of major punishment before an officer is retained or considered or reconsidered for any promotion list. For special reason to be recorded, this disqualification may be relaxed by the competent officer who gives the promotion. " 19. There cannot be any doubt if a person had not been confirmed for no fault of his, an order of confirmation may be passed with retrospective effect. In this case, it has not been contended that except departmental proceeding which was initiated in the year 1979, any other departmental proceeding has been initiated against him prior to thereto. The petitioner thus became entitled to confirmation in the post of A. S. I. in accordance with the statutory provisions. 20. In this view of the matter, so far as the matter relating to the confirmation of the petition is concerned, the same should be considered on its own, merits keeping in view the law and spirit of the rule 660 (b)aforementioned. 21. Further the petitioner has not been awarded any major punishment. 20. In this view of the matter, so far as the matter relating to the confirmation of the petition is concerned, the same should be considered on its own, merits keeping in view the law and spirit of the rule 660 (b)aforementioned. 21. Further the petitioner has not been awarded any major punishment. It is now well settled that any minor punishment inflicted upon an employee remain in force for three years from the date of occurrence. Reference in this connection may be made to Ram Anuragh Singh V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1992 (1) PUR 512. 22. The respondents are, therefore, bound to consider the cases of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in terms of the aforementioned Judgment. 23. As noticed hereinbefore in the counter affidavit, it has been contended that a disciplinary proceeding is pending as against the petitioner pendency of the disciplinary procending as such cannot be a ground for not considering the case of the petitioner for his promotion from one post to the other. 24. In such a case the respondents would be at liberty to adopt the sealed cover procedure in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in K, V. Jankiram V/s. Union of India, reported in 1992 (1) PUR 27 (S. C. ). 25. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of police in accordance with law by the appropriate authorities. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for confirmation in the post of sub Inspector of police keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore within one month from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. After the date from which the petitioner become entitled to get his services confirmed his case for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police should be placed before the Board at an early date and a decision in this regard is taken within three months thereafter. 26. It is expected that in the meanwhile, the disciplinary proceeding pending as against the petitioner should come to an end. 26. It is expected that in the meanwhile, the disciplinary proceeding pending as against the petitioner should come to an end. If the said disciplinary proceeding are not concluded within the aforementioned period it would be open to the respondents to adopt the sealed cover procedure so that in the event, the petitioner is exonerated from the charges in the disciplinary proceeding, he should be granted promotion in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in k. V. Jankiramans case (Supra ). This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions.