Case Background
The petitioner is a government employee working as Technical Adviser to the Superintending Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department (P.H.E.D.), Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
She approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7931 of 2021. Her main grievance was that her 3rd Assured Career Progression (ACP) / Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits were being withheld, and she was being denied consideration for higher posts, on the ground that a vigilance criminal case was pending against her.
According to the writ petition, by order dated 22.06.2020, passed in a service complaint, and based on a decision of the Departmental Screening Committee dated 28.05.2020, the department kept her 3rd ACP/MACP pending. The reason was a query regarding the pendency of a criminal case (Vigilance Case No. 32/12) against her.
The petitioner claimed that the Vigilance Department, in its letter no. 132/2013 dated 06.02, had already clarified her position, calling it an error of record. She also relied on guidelines about promotion in cases of pending criminal proceedings contained in Resolution in memo no. 7979 dated 06.11.2003, to say that the department could not keep her ACP or promotion on hold.
She further challenged order dated 27.06.2020 passed by the Service Complaint Redressal Officer (respondent no. 5) in the same service complaint. Through this, the officer communicated that meetings of the Departmental Promotion Committee for all types of promotion had been kept on hold by memo no. 5066 dated 11.04.2019, and also rejected her claim for 3rd ACP/MACP.
When she filed an appeal against that rejection, the Departmental Appellate Authority for Employees’ Grievance (respondent no. 6) dismissed her appeal by order dated 04.12.2020. She therefore sought to set aside these orders in the High Court.
The petitioner also requested that her case be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, or for being given officiating charge of that post, before granting such benefits to juniors placed below her in the seniority and gradation list. She alleged that the private respondents had been given such benefits while she was ignored.
What the Court Examined and Decided
On 12.05.2022, the Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri, framed the core question in simple terms. The Court asked whether any official can delay promotion or any service benefit when there is no departmental charge memo and no criminal charge sheet against the employee.
The Court recorded the petitioner’s stand that on the date when her ACP and MACP became due, no charge sheet had been filed in any criminal proceeding and no departmental charge memo had been issued. On that basis, she claimed she was entitled to service benefits like ACP and MACP, and that withholding them due to a supposed pending vigilance case was unjustified.
The Court noted that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents was silent on this crucial point. There was no clear statement from the State to rebut the petitioner’s claim that no charge sheet or charge memo existed on the due dates of her ACP and MACP.
In view of this silence, the Court took a firm procedural step. It directed the Deputy Secretary (MC)-cum-P.H.E.D., Patna, to appear in person and to ascertain whether a charge sheet had in fact been framed in the criminal case. This step showed that the Court wanted clarity from the records rather than assumptions or vague references to a “pending” case.
The matter was then listed for further hearing on 19.05.2022.
On 19.05.2022, the Deputy Secretary (MC)-cum-P.H.E.D., Patna, Ms. Poonam, appeared personally before the Court. With reference to the official records, she made an important statement. She submitted that, on the dates when the petitioner’s ACP and MACP became due, there was no charge memo in any disciplinary proceedings and no charge sheet in any criminal proceedings against the petitioner that was pending consideration.
This factual clarification from the department’s own records went to the heart of the dispute. The entire withholding of ACP/MACP had been justified on a supposed pendency of a criminal vigilance case. Once it was admitted before the Court that no charge sheet or departmental charge memo existed on the crucial dates, the basis for delaying service benefits collapsed.
On these facts, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to ACP and MACP “as and when it was due.” This meant that the department should treat her as if the benefits had been granted on the original due dates, unaffected by the earlier reliance on the alleged criminal case.
The Court directed the authorities to extend the ACP and MACP benefits to the petitioner by passing a speaking order. A speaking order is one that gives reasons and explanations, instead of a bare conclusion. This requirement forces the department to clearly record how and why the benefits are being released, making the process more transparent and easier to challenge in future if needed.
The Court also addressed the monetary aspect. It ordered that all arrears arising from the delayed grant of ACP and MACP must be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
Recognising that mere direction to pay is sometimes not enough to ensure timely compliance, the Court added a financial consequence. It held that if the department failed to pay within three months, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the arrears of payment. This interest would compensate her for the loss caused by the delay and would also put pressure on the authorities to follow the Court’s direction promptly.
In light of these findings, the Court specifically set aside the order dated 22.06.2020 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). This was the order through which the earlier decision of the Departmental Screening Committee had been communicated, keeping her 3rd ACP/MACP pending on the ground of the alleged criminal case.
With that, the Court allowed the writ petition. The judgment does not record a separate, detailed discussion of the petitioner’s claim for promotion or officiating charge of the post of Superintending Engineer, or the challenge to other departmental orders beyond what was necessary to decide the ACP/MACP issue. The core relief that emerges from the written judgment is the recognition and enforcement of her right to ACP and MACP benefits in the absence of any formal criminal or departmental charges on the due dates.
This outcome confirms a basic principle for government employees: mere mention of a vigilance case, without a charge sheet, cannot be used indefinitely to block financial upgradations that are otherwise due under the ACP/MACP schemes.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for government employees in Bihar and elsewhere, particularly those working under schemes like ACP and MACP.
Many employees face situations where their promotions or financial upgradations are kept on hold for years simply because a vigilance enquiry or complaint is said to be “pending,” even when no formal charge sheet has been filed.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that, at least on the facts of this case, an employee’s service benefits cannot be delayed without an actual departmental charge memo or a criminal charge sheet on the relevant date.
For employees, this means that departments cannot casually cite “pendency of criminal case” without backing it up with real, recorded steps like filing of charge sheet or issuance of charge memo. If nothing of this sort exists, employees may rely on this judgment to seek similar relief.
The judgment also matters because the Court ordered payment of arrears within a fixed time and added an interest clause at 8% per annum in case of delay. This signals that failure to grant timely service benefits will have financial consequences for the State.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can a government department delay or deny ACP/MACP and similar service benefits to an employee solely on the basis of an alleged pending criminal case, when no departmental charge memo or criminal charge sheet exists on the due date?
Answer: No. On the admitted facts of this case, the Patna High Court held that, in the absence of a departmental charge memo or criminal charge sheet on the dates when ACP and MACP were due, the employee was entitled to those benefits, and the order withholding them was set aside.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment text does not record any specific previous case law citations relied upon by the Court.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7931 of 2021
Case Title: Anju Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 1
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Date of Judgment: 19.05.2022
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Amarendra Narayan, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG 5
Respondents: State of Bihar and departmental authorities of Public Health Engineering Department and General Administration Department, along with two individual officers.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (service matter) challenging denial of 3rd ACP/MACP and related service benefits, along with related departmental grievance and appellate orders.
Link to Judgment: View original judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
