Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to consider him for granting promotion to the post of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer w.e.f August 2007 i.e. from the date when the juniors/subordinates to the petitioner were considered and granted promotion. It has been stated that the petitioner was also found eligible for promotion, but he was not given promotion and a post was kept reserved for him. The petitioner's promotion was refused on the ground of alleged noting of the Charmian on the file that a charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner and the same is yet to be settled and he will be given only current charge. According to the petitioner, no charge sheet was filed against him on or before the date of consideration of promotion and the said noting was wholly without any basis. It has been submitted that the petitioner's promotion was arbitrarily withheld.
(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents-J.S.E.B stating, inter alia, that the petitioner's promotion was withheld due to issuance of a charge sheet against the petitioner before consideration of his promotion.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts on record and submissions made by them. Though the petitioner's promotion was withheld on the ground that a charge sheet was issued and a departmental proceeding was pending against him, Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-J.S.E.B, submitted that she has got no document to substantiate the same. Learned counsel further submitted that information was sought from the vigilance department, Government of Jharkhand regarding pendency of proceeding against the petitioner. It has been reported by the said department that no proceeding is pending against the petitioner. In view of the above, I find that the respondents have failed to substantiate the ground on the basis of which the consideration of the petitioner's promotion was denied. In stead, learned counsel for the J.S.E.B has conceded that according to the report of the Vigilance Department, there is no proceeding pending against the petitioner. Thus, the ground on which the petitioner's promotion was denied, is perverse. Denial of the petitioner's promotion on the said ground is wholly arbitrary and illegal.;