2025:JHHC:26628 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.397 of 2025 ----- Anil Kumar, aged about 54 years, son of Late Shridhar Paswan, resident of Flat No.202, Ajay Enclave, Matwari, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi. 2. The Joint Secretary to Government, Department of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Minority and Backward Class Welfare, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town & District- Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District-Chatra. 4. District Welfare Officer, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District-Chatra. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Akansha Priya, Advocate Mr. Karamjit Singh Chhabra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA-I …...... 05 /02.09.2025: Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i) To quash and set aside the entire departmental proceeding against the petitioner initiated by Letter No.286 dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure-1). (ii) To further direct the respondent(s) to conclude the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner within a time frame inasmuch as because of pendency of the departmental proceeding for many years the petitioner has suffered a lot including that the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted from the post of Sub Divisional Welfare Officer to the post of District Welfare Officer. (iii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice 2025:JHHC:26628 2 to the petitioner.” 3. Considering the relief claimed by the petitioner, on 28.01.2025 this Court passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since six years the petitioner's departmental proceeding is pending and on the pretext of pendency of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has not even considered for promotion, whereas his junior has already been promoted. Learned counsel for the State prays for two weeks time to seek instruction on the point as to when departmental proceeding can be concluded and whether the petitioner can be considered for promotion and the result can be kept in the sealed cover or not. Considering the aforesaid submission, list this case after two weeks under the heading “For Orders”.” 4. Today when the matter has been listed, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Court affidavit. By referring to paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit he submits that inquiry officer has submitted his report before the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 04.05.2022. It has further been highlighted that there is some contradictions in the show cause reply of the petitioner and representation of the petitioner submitted before the department and report of the presenting officer. Further it has been mentioned in paragraph no. 9 that the decision of the DPC with regard to the promotion of the petitioner has been kept in sealed cover. 5. Considering the aforesaid statement made in the counter affidavit and especially the fact that the inquiry report has already been submitted, I direct the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceeding within three months from the date of production of the copy of this order. 6. This writ petition is disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/