Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 80 (PAT)

R. S. Rana v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-18

M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment 1. In this writ application, petitioner seeks appropriate order directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes with effect from 18.9.1997 with all consequential benefits by implementing the decision taken by the Departmental promotion committee in its meeting held on 31.5.97. 2. Petitioner is a member of Bihar Finance Service and at present posted as Commercial Taxes Officer. He was suspended vide Government Notification No. 555 dated 29.6.96 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In the said proceeding detailed enquiry was conducted and the Inquiring Officer submitted his report to the Government and ultimately petitioner was exonerated from all the charges. As a result of which entire period of suspension of the petitioner was treated on duty vide Government Notification No. 360 dated 3.6.1998. It is stated that in the meantime the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 31.5.1997 considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistani Commissioner Commercial Taxes. However, several officers were given promotion but the case of the petitioner was kept pending on account of Departmental Proceeding and one post was kept reserved. Petitioners case is that inspite of the aforesaid fact and also several reminders given by the petitioner he has not been promoted till date. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It has been admitted that case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 31.5.1997, since he was under suspension and therefore one post was kept reserved for him. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered by Departmental Promotion Committee in the meeting held on 21.12.1998, but he was not found fit for promotion in the rank of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes because of punishment of censure was awarded to him vide memo no. 1805 dated 28.11.98, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned J.C. to G.A. 5. 1805 dated 28.11.98, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned J.C. to G.A. 5. Admittedly the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 31.5.97 considered the case of the petitioner including other persons for the purpose of giving promotion on the post of Assistant Commissioner to Commercial Taxes and categorically stated that the case of the petitioner was not recommended because of the pendency of the departmental proceeding. Petitioner was admittedly exonerated from the charges by virtue of Govt. order dated 3.6.98 (Annexure-2). The alleged punishment of censure was passed on 28.11.98. It is therefore clear that in 1997 when the promotion of the petitioner became due petitioner has not been punished for any charges either prior or on the date when the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion. In subsequent event after the petitioner acquired the eligibility criteria could not have been taken into consideration while depriving the petitioner from such promotion. It is rather surprising that in the office order dated 28.11.98 Annexure-B the punishment of censure was imposed on the charge of absence from duty from 4.3.96 to 7.3.96. 6. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the decision of the respondents/authority in denying the promotion to the petitioner in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr. vs. Dr. O.N. Tripathi and ors. (1991 SC 212) 7. Having regard to the entire fact and circumstances of the case this writ application is allowed and the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 21.12.98 denying the promotion to the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to take decision for giving promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes from the due date. Such decision must be taken within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.