Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 13th January, 1997 on CWJC No. 9719 of 1989 : Pashupati Nath Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2. There has been a long drawn litigation with the petitioner chasing his claims which ultimately rest on the aspect that he ought to have been given promotion on the post of Deputy Controller of Accounts w.e.f. 1 -4-1981 and not from 1-4-1984. If this relief is granted to the petitioner, provided he is entitled to it, the rest is consequential and will follow to the benefit of the petitioner. 3. The reason the petitioner faced inquiries and ultimately a punishment by censure is an aspect which is germane to the issue. The petitioner even filed service case No. 246 of 1987 before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was resisting a censure entry consequent upon a departmental inquiry. As a result of the departmental inquiry the petitioner had at one stage also been suspended. 4. If the circumstances are seen in isolation that there was a departmental proceeding, the petitioner was suspended, the suspension was revoked, the petitioner was awarded a censure remark on his service dossier, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. The record of proceedings of the service case No, 246 of 1987 are not available on the petition. The contention is that the Bihar Administrative Tribunal itself became defunct. The petitioner did file a writ petition to challenge the censure entry but this writ petition was dismissed. 6. The petitioner never had the opportunity to seek an adjudication on the censure entry which had been awarded to him. In a straight jacket formula the petitioner has seen a departmental inquiry. The censure entry is the result of it. 7. The relevant part is, what was the departmental inquiry about? The petitioner is an auditor by profession and, thus, was in government service. While carrying out an audit of a Government office in Patna the petitioner reported what seemed to him irregularities and financial aberrations. Any auditor worth his salt will report correctly on an audit. But when the petitioner submitted his audit report he was going against the grain. He was questioning his superiors. These senior officials did not relish this and the petitioner paid a price for it. Any auditor worth his salt will report correctly on an audit. But when the petitioner submitted his audit report he was going against the grain. He was questioning his superiors. These senior officials did not relish this and the petitioner paid a price for it. Senior officers felt that the petitioner could not make such a report. This cannot become a subject matter for a departmental inquiry. The petitioner being charged with a misdeamnour, is itself a perversity. The departmental proceedings are vitiated. 8. In the circumstances the sordid story of the petitioner facing a departmental inquiry was not only a perversity but the inquiry was spiteful. The departmental inquiry is itself quashed. 9. The petitioner will be entitled for promotion with effect from 1 -4-1981. 10. The appeal is allowed.