1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the respondent Board, by which, the promotion order dated 01.08.2007 which came into effect from 26.06.2007, has been cancelled. It is also prayed that direction may be given to the respondents to promote the writ petitioner as Chief Engineer with effect from 01.12.2009. 3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Engineer Assistant in the month of February, 1975, thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer in the Month of July, 1976. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by Resolution No.2441 dated 23.10.2000 which was concluded but no final order was passed in that proceeding. By letter dated 28.11.2002 the Jharkhand State Electricity Board requested the Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna to send all records relating to pending departmental proceeding with regard to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer by Notification No.5865 dated 07.12.2004 and one Shri Sheo Murat Pandey, junior to him in the cadre, was promoted vide Notification No.5867 dated 07.12.2007. The meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 26.06.2007 and the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 26.06.2007 vide notification No.4471 dated 01.08.2007. 4. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that just after a week of promotion granted to the petitioner by notification No.4471 dated 01.08.2007, the promotion of the petitioner was cancelled by Notification No.4888 dated 08.08.2007. The petitioner, thereafter, moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.4383/2009 on 07.09.2007, which was not pressed having become infructuous. In the meantime, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.07.2010. By resolution No.3597 dated 14.07.2011 the petitioner was absolved from the charges framed against him. Thereafter, by Resolution dated 4.02.2012 as contained in Annexure9 to the writ petition the petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer from 25.11.2008 to 31.07.2010. He has filed representation before the authorities which is still pending. 5. On the other hand, Mr. By resolution No.3597 dated 14.07.2011 the petitioner was absolved from the charges framed against him. Thereafter, by Resolution dated 4.02.2012 as contained in Annexure9 to the writ petition the petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer from 25.11.2008 to 31.07.2010. He has filed representation before the authorities which is still pending. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board submits that the matter of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer was taken into consideration in the year 2007 and he was allowed promotion to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer vide order dated 01.08.2007 and after promotion of the petitioner, it came to the knowledge of the Board that the departmental proceeding and a Vigilance Police Case No.10 of 2001 was pending before the BSEB, Patna against the petitioner, therefore, the matter of promotion of order of the petitioner was reviewed and it was cancelled. He further submits that considering the fact that a vigilance case was pending against the petitioner and was actually holding the post of Electrical Executive Engineer at the time of promotion, therefore, the petitioner was not found fit for promotion to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer. By way of reply, Mr. Jha, draws attention of this Court by referring to the Annexure-SA/3 to the supplementary counter affidavit and submits that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board requested the BSEB, Patna to send the status report with regard to vigilance case and the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. He further submits pursuant to the letter dated 30.06.2011 issued by the BSEB, Patna, it has clearly been stated that against that vigilance enquiry, till date no sanction order has been received, therefore, there is no question for grant of sanction for prosecution. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that vide order dated 14.07.2011, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges and in pursuant to that, by order dated 04.12.2012 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer w.e.f. 25.11.2008 to 31.08.2010 in view of the reply of the BSEB, Patna. So far as the vigilance case is concerned, that has not proceeded as there is no sanction till date. 7. The petitioner was already promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer vide order dated 01.08.2007. So far as the vigilance case is concerned, that has not proceeded as there is no sanction till date. 7. The petitioner was already promoted to the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer vide order dated 01.08.2007. The juniors to the petitioner have already been promoted to the post as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 01.12.2009, accordingly, this Court finds that there is no reason as to why the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 01.12.2009, the date when junior to the petitioner was promoted to the said post. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the Board at his own wisdom, provided promotion to the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer from 25.11.2008 to 28.07.2010 (as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition). The impugned order dated 08.08.2007 is quashed. 8. In view of these reasons, the Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order in this regard taking into account the fact that the junior to the petitioner has already been promoted vide order dated 04.02.2012 and the said exercise will be completed by the Board within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy this order. 9. The Board shall also pass the order with regard to consequential benefits. 10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of