ORDER : The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for quashing the order No.3255/2016, dated 05.11.2016 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Administration), Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi, Jharkhand whereby the petitioner has been demoted to the post of Sub Inspector of Police from the post of Inspector of Police. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 31.01.2017 by which representation dated 24.11.2016 has also been rejected by respondent No.3. 2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police on 05.09.1994 and since then he has served the Police Department with utmost sincerity and diligence. He was transferred and posted in several police stations of the then unified State of Bihar and also of the State of Jharkhand after its bifurcation from the State of Bihar. The petitioner served the Department for 22 long years as Sub-Inspector of Police and taking into account his hard and sincere work, he was considered and granted promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to Inspector of Police vide order dated 14.05.2016 issued vide memo No.1128 issued by the Office of Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Ranchi, Jharkhand under the order of Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, Jharkhand where name of the petitioner stood at Serial No.75 in the promotion list. It is the case of the petitioner that in the Departmental Promotion Committee headed by Director General of Police held on 25.08.2015 and 04.05.2016 the name of the petitioner was approved for promotion for the post of Inspector of Police along with others with effect from the date of order i.e. 14.05.2016. It is further case of the petitioner that after the order of promotion, a show-cause was issued vide D.R.No.280/2016 dated 02.05.2016 and petitioner replied to the same on 06.05.2016. After filing of the reply to the show-cause, the petitioner was put under suspension vide Order No.686/2016 issued from the office of Superintendent of Police, Koderma. Thereafter a charge memo vide memo No.1009, dated 23.05.2016 was issued by Superintendent of Police, Koderma and departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. After filing of the reply to the show-cause, the petitioner was put under suspension vide Order No.686/2016 issued from the office of Superintendent of Police, Koderma. Thereafter a charge memo vide memo No.1009, dated 23.05.2016 was issued by Superintendent of Police, Koderma and departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. The suspension of the petitioner was subsequently revoked on and from 24.05.2016 by the Superintendent of Police, Koderma and he was also relieved w.e.f. 01.06.2016 from the post of Sub-Inspector by the Superintendent of Police, Koderma vide order No.832/2016, dated 10.06.2016. Thereafter the petitioner joined as Inspector of Police in the Jharkhand Jaguar where he was directed to join as per order dated 14.05.2016. The petitioner was shocked and surprised to know that he was demoted from the post of Inspector of Police to Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.10.2016 vide memo No.2703 dated 28.10.2016. His salary was also reduced by re-fixing the pay scale. Aggrieved by the order of demotion, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities but no heed was paid to the same and petitioner continued to work as Sub-Inspector of Police and hence the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court. 3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order of demotion is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel further argues that from the promotion order itself, it is crystal clear that any order of promotion can be quashed only on the ground that if the petitioner has been awarded any punishment prior to the order of promotion or any departmental proceeding is pending prior to the order of promotion or on the date of promotion. Learned Counsel draws the attention of the Court towards the order of promotion dated 14.05.2016, particularly, clause (iv) which clearly shows that any pending proceeding in the Court or any major punishment awarded to the petitioner within three years of the date of occurrence no promotion can be granted. Learned Counsel further argues that none of the conditions mentioned in the order of promotion comes in the way of promotion to the petitioner and as such the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and dehors the Rules. Learned Counsel further argues that none of the conditions mentioned in the order of promotion comes in the way of promotion to the petitioner and as such the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and dehors the Rules. Learned Counsel further argues that impugned order be quashed and petitioner be promoted to the post of Inspector of Police from the date of original order of promotion i.e. 14.05.2016. 4. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Agrawal, A.C. to S.C. V very fairly submits that though promotion is not a right but it has to be considered very fairly in accordance with law. The petitioner was considered for promotion but only on the ground of jurisdiction the order of promotion was recalled. Learned Junior Counsel to the State Mr. Anoop Kumar Agrawal draws the attention of the Court towards the various conditions levelled in the order of promotion and very fairly submits that admittedly no proceeding was pending against the petitioner neither the petitioner was inflicted with major punishment. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and dehors the Rules and hence it is quashed and set aside on the following grounds: (i). from the impugned order, it transpires that no proceeding was pending against the petitioner on the date of promotion neither any major punishment was inflicted. (ii). the order of promotion dated 14.05.2016 clearly stipulates two conditions for not to allow a promotee to join the promotional post. Misconduct must have been committed within three years of promotion. Enquiry must have commenced for aforesaid misconduct on or before the date of occurrence. All these conditions must have been fulfilled. In the facts of the present case condition No.2 has not been fulfilled. Neither any departmental proceeding was pending on the date of promotion nor any major punishment was inflicted, therefore, there was no occasion to recall the order of promotion. Merely passing of an order of suspension after the order of promotion does not take away the right of petitioner, who was granted promotion prior to that. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid Rules, Guidelines, the law has been well settled. This Hon'ble Court in case of “Sambhu Prasad Jamadar vrs. Merely passing of an order of suspension after the order of promotion does not take away the right of petitioner, who was granted promotion prior to that. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid Rules, Guidelines, the law has been well settled. This Hon'ble Court in case of “Sambhu Prasad Jamadar vrs. State of Jharkhand”, reported in 2011 4 J.C.R. 301 has clearly held that once the petitioner has been considered and granted promotion and on the date of promotion when no departmental proceeding is pending neither any punishment was inflicted, subsequent departmental proceeding or punishment cannot snatch the right of petitioner for getting promotion which was granted much earlier. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.11.2016 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the promoted post of Inspector of Police from 14.05.2016 with all consequential benefits. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.