JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.10743 of 2019 has been filed for ignoring the defects as pointed out by the Office.

2. For the reasons narrated in the interlocutory application, the defects are ignored.

3. I.A. No.10743 of 2019 stands allowed and disposed of.

4. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rohit, the learned AC to Addl. Advocate General-I appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

5. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.

6. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 07.12.2018 whereby the petitioner’s representation pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.3529 of 2014 has been rejected. The further prayer is made for providing financial upgradation in the pay scale under 1st and 2nd Assured Progression Scheme as well as for 3rd MACP. The prayer for promotion is also made.

7. The facts of the present case, in short compass, is that the petitioner has joined the service on 01.07.1987 as direct recruit Assistant Engineer having been appointed through Combined Competitive Examination duly conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission. After bifurcation of the State, cadre of the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand and thereafter, the petitioner started discharging his duties in the capacity of Assistant Engineer in Special Division, Rural Development Department, Jamshedpur. The petitioner was posted in Swarnrekha Project. A criminal case has been instituted against him along with other being Rajnagar P.S. Case No.33 of 2000, in which even after lapse of more than 14 years, the investigation has not been completed and the charge sheet has not been submitted before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. Now the charge sheet has been submitted on 23.10.2018 for the same set of allegation, subject matter of First information Report, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner under the Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules vide order dated 23.06.2008. The order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner directing to recover a sum of Rs.57,000/-. Thus, the departmental proceeding has come to an end with a direction to recover the said amount. The punishment order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No.3990 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.11.2016. The petitioner has also moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.3529 of 2014 which was disposed of on 26.09.2018 with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation and the same will be decided by the respondent State. After the said direction, the petitioner has approached the competent authority by way of filing a representation and now which has been considered and it has been rejected and that is why, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has joined the service on 01.07.1987 and 1st Time bound promotion was due on 01.07.1999, 2nd Time bound promotion was due on 01.07.2011 and the 3rd MACP is due on 01.07.2017. He further argues that for the period for which the financial upgradation are due, there is no criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner and in the said criminal case, no charge sheet was filed before 23.10.2018. He further argues the case by way of referring to paragraph no.20 of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has been singled out for promotion as the similarly situated person namely Kaushalesh Kumar and Ram Vinesh Singh, who were also accused in the same criminal case, have already been granted the financial upgradation. He