Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2574 (JHR)

Shukdeo Subodh Gandhi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-11-27

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, A.C to GP.II, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 16.9.1997 and for further direction upon the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner to promote him on substantive basis on the post of Chief Engineer as also on the post of Engineer-in-Chief considering his seniority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing has submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2009. 4. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 stating that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the Establishment Committee in its meeting dated dated 29.12.2008 but he was not found suitable due to punishment of ''censure'' awarded to him at least thrice and three proceedings are pending against him, as evident from Annexure A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that since the petitioner is considered unfit to be promoted even on officiating basis on the post of Superintending Engineer, his prayer for further promotion to the post of Chief Engineer and thereafter to the post of Engineer-in-Chief is irrelevant. Besides, the petitioner is also an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 24/98 in which sanction of the prosecution has already been accorded vide order no. 59 dated 22.12.2005 issued by the Law Department, Government of Jharkhand and thereafter charge-sheet bearing no. 200/07 dated 31.6.2007 has also been submitted in the concerned Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it appears that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the respondents but for the punishment of censure and pending criminal proceedings, respondents did not find him suitable for promotion on the post in question. 6. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.