Order S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-As both the cases having preferred by common petitioner, Shankar Prasad Kedia, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In w.P. (S) No. 3685 of 2001, while petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction upon the Respondents to grant him promotion with all consequential benefits to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes w.e.f. 17th September, 1997, i.e. from the date his juniors were so promoted, in w.P. (S) No. 3697 of 2001, the petitioner has challenged the departmental proceeding, as was initiated by the Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Patna, vide Memo No. 378/C dated 27th February, 1999. 3. From the pleading made by the petitioner, it will be evident that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, was kept pending because of pendency of a departmental proceeding and as such it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant facts relating to proceedings which are pending against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was member of the Bihar Finance Service (State Finance Service) and in now posted in the State of Jharkhand. He was appointed as Commercial Taxes Officer in the year 1975 on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission and subsequently promoted as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes w.e.f. the year 1984, vide Notification No. 212 dated 24th February, 1989. 5. The petitioner was posted at Jharia as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jharia Circle, Dhanbad where he joined on 9th February, 1990. The Deputy Commissioner IIC., vide order dated 20th April, 1990 allotted him works amongst the' officers of the Circle for issuance of various declarations forms including Form E1. According to the petitioner, though such work was allotted to him, but the forms were not entrusted in his physical custody till 3rd May, 1991 which was in the custody of the Head Clerk, Jharia Circle. The Head Clerk of the Jharia Circle was transferred to Dhanbad Circle and relieved on 29th December, 1990, but instead of handing over charge to some one, he simply handed over the key of the almirah to one Shiv Shankar Ram, Clerk, Jharia Circle. After physical hand over as was made by the Head Clerk on 1st February, 1991, it came to the notice of the authorities that 25 Nos. After physical hand over as was made by the Head Clerk on 1st February, 1991, it came to the notice of the authorities that 25 Nos. of Form E-1 were missing which were mentioned in the Stock Register on 6th February, 1991, followed by FIR lodged in Jharia Police Station being Jharia P.S. Case No. 75/91 dated 25th February, 1991 under Section 409, IPC against two persons i.e. Bacchu Prasad Rajak, Head Clerk and Shiv Shankar Ram, Clerk. 6. Further case of the petitioner is that the incident of loss of forms took place between 2nd April, 1990 to 3rd May, 1991, during that period the petitioner had not taken physical custody of the forms. After police investigation, the Deputy S.P. Sindri submitted supervision report, wherein no whisper made regarding the role of petitioner. Similarly, in separate investigation as was made by Deputy S.P. (Food). CID nothing was attributed against the petitioner. Further, the C.P. (Food) in his report dated 3rd February, 1999 also said nothing against him, rather recommended for initiating proceeding against Shri Motilal Vidyarthy, who was posted as Deputy Commissioner I/C., Commercial Taxes a that relevant point of time. 7. However, the petitioner was suspended by State of Bihar, vide notification dated 2nd February, 1999 and a depart mental proceeding was initiated by the State of Bihar, vide another Notification dated 27th February, 1999. 8. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on different dates i.e. 20th May, 1999, 23rd June, 1999, 23rd July, 1999, 26th August, 1999, but the proceeding could not be concluded for the laches on the part of the State. 9. The petitioner had to move before the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 3678 of 1999 against the order of suspension. It was disposed of on 27th September, 1999 with direction to the State to conclude the enquiry within two months. It was also stipulated that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded and no final order is passed within the aforesaid period, the order of suspension shall stand revoked on 3rd October, 1999. Subsequently, the proceeding was not concluded, nor final order was passed and in the aforesaid circumstances, the State Govt. revoked the order of suspension, vide Notification No. 1881 dated 26th October, 1999. 10. Subsequently, the proceeding was not concluded, nor final order was passed and in the aforesaid circumstances, the State Govt. revoked the order of suspension, vide Notification No. 1881 dated 26th October, 1999. 10. At the time of reorganisation of the State of Bihar, the service of the petitioner was placed under the successor State of Jharkhand under Section 72(1) of the Bihar Re-organisation Act by Government of India's order dated 6th November, 2000, followed by Notification No. 1350 dated 11th November, 2000, in pursuance of which the petitioner joined at Ranchi on 19th November, 2000. It is stated that the departmental proceeding has not yet been concluded nor final order has been passed by the competent authority. 11. So far as the promotion of petitioner to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes is concerned, his case along with others including juniors was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 26th May, 1997. The name of the petitioner is at SI. No. 53. wherein the case of the petitioner shown to have been kept pending because of pendency of allegation in the Vigilance Department of the State. 12. In pursuance of the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee, juniors having promoted to the higher post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, vide Notification No. 1246 dated 17th September, 1997, the petitioner has prayed for promotion from such retrospective date. 13. The case of the petitioner was again placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee which held its meeting on 21st December, 1998, wherein the name of petitioner is shown at SI. No. 18 and again his case was kept pending because of pendency of allegation in the Vigilance Deptt. of the State. 14. The Cabinet (Vigilance) Department of the State of Bihar, by its letter No.578 dated 17th February, 1998 gave clearance certificate against a number of officers. Therein, the name of the petitioner was shown at SI. No. 12 and mentioned that no vigilance case is pending against him. 15. Subsequently, the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Investigation Bureau issued letter No. 534 dated 17th July, 2000 giving clearance certificate in respect to petitioner for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. Inspite of aforesaid clearance given by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Deptt. No. 12 and mentioned that no vigilance case is pending against him. 15. Subsequently, the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Investigation Bureau issued letter No. 534 dated 17th July, 2000 giving clearance certificate in respect to petitioner for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes. Inspite of aforesaid clearance given by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Deptt. followed by subsequent clearance given vide letter No. 3053 dated 24th November, 1998, the case of the petitioner having not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes from the date the juniors were so promoted, the other writ petition was preferred. 16. The State of Jharkhand has merely taken plea that it has not initiated any proceeding whatsoever, nor any pending proceeding against the petitioner has been transferred from the State of Bihar for disposal. The State of Bihar, particularly, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna who is having records and information of the entire departmental proceeding can give proper reply. 17. The State of Bihar in its counter affidavit has not disputed the facts as pleaded by petitioner and recorded above. It merely stated that because of allegation pending against the petitioner in the internal Vigilance Section of the Department with regard to theft of statutory forms and because of criminal case being Jharia P.S. Case No. 75/91 dated 25th September, 1991 lodged against the petitioner, the DPC did not recommend his name. 18. The petitioner in his rejoinder while disputed the aforesaid statement, has made categorical statement that no allegation has been made against the petitioner in the FIR lodged on 25th February, 1991, nor he has been made accused .in any criminal case. On the contrary from letter No. 1175 dated 16th September, 1997 issued by DIG (CID) (Food), Bihar and reports submitted by Police officials, it is clear that no criminal case was pending, rather Cabinet (Vigilance) Cell gave clearance for promotion of petitioner with specific statement that no enquiry is pending in the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department. 19. According to petitioner, the departmental proceeding having initiated vide Memo No. 378/C dated 27th February 99, should have reached its finality as per Courts direction. 19. According to petitioner, the departmental proceeding having initiated vide Memo No. 378/C dated 27th February 99, should have reached its finality as per Courts direction. The service of the petitioner having placed under the State of Jharkhand and he being posted within the State of Jharkhand, it is the State of Jharkhand which is competent to pass final order in such departmental proceeding in the light of decision of this Court in Arbind Bilung's case, 2001 (3) JCR 155 (Jhr.) : 2001 (2) JLJR 227 . 20. The question as to whether a person can be denied his right to be considered for promotion because of pendency of departmental proceeding, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. In the case of New Bank of India VS. N.P. Sahgal, JT 1991 (1) SC 498, the Supreme Court held that in law, the mere fact that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or under consideration against an employee, does not constitute good ground for not considering the employee concerned for promotion if he is in the zone of consideration nor would it constitute a good ground for denying promotion if the employee is considered otherwise fit for promotion. In case such an officer/employee is otherwise found fit for promotion, that promotion can be withheld until the officer/employee is exonerated from the charges, but his promotion will have to be given effect from the date it would have been otherwise effective. Such person can neither be excluded from consideration for promotion nor can the promotion be denied to him. 21. In the case of State of M.P. vs. J.S. Bansal, reported in JT 1998 (1) SC 514, the Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, if charge sheet is issued, it would be well within the right of the D.P.C. to place its recommendation in a sealed cover so that the sealed cover may be opened on the conclusion of the departmental proceeding and the recommendation contained therein may be given effect without delay. 22. In the present case of petitioner, the D.P.C. kept the matter pending because of pendency of enquiry in the Vigilance Department. However, the Vigilance Deptt. had given its clean chit that nothing was pending before it. 22. In the present case of petitioner, the D.P.C. kept the matter pending because of pendency of enquiry in the Vigilance Department. However, the Vigilance Deptt. had given its clean chit that nothing was pending before it. In any case, the departmental proceeding having initiated the D.P.C. should have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion and at best could have kept its recommendation in a sealed cover for its opening after the conclusion of the departmental proceeding. 23. From the fact pleaded by the petitioner, it will be evident that the departmental proceeding was initiated as back as on 27th February, 1999. The petitioner while challenged the order of suspension before Patna High Court in CWJC No. 3678 of 1999, the High Court by its order dated 22nd September, 1999, directed the State to conclude the departmental proceeding with two months. In spite of the direction, I it was not concluded. On the other hand, from the record, it appears that the Enquiry Officer in Departmental Proceeding No. 50/2000 (99), as was initiated against the petitioner, has sent back the records to the State of Bihar, vide Memo No. 54 dated 16th January, 2001 in view of reorganisation of the State and the petitioner having placed within the control of the State of Jharkhand, the Enquiry Officer observed that the file should be transferred to the Jharkhand Government in its Administrative Department for appropriate order. 24. In the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the State of Bihar through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Patna is directed to transfer the file relating to departmental proceeding, promotion and other relevant files of petitioner to the State of Jharkhand immediately, but not later than one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 25. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Ranchi, in his turn, is directed to take steps and to ensure that the departmental proceeding is concluded and final order is passed within three months from the date of receipt of relevant files, or within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, whichever is earlier. 26. 26. Further direction is given to the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Ranchi to take steps to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes w.e.f. 17th September, 1997 i.e. from the date juniors have been so promoted, immediately on conclusion of the departmental proceeding or within four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order, whichever is earlier. If the departmental proceeding is not concluded and final order is not passed within the time frame above (four months), the State of Jharkhand will issue appropriate order in respect to promotion of petitioner without awaiting the result of the departmental proceeding. 27. In the facts and circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the departmental proceeding for the present. 28. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.