@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.@mdashThe petitioner had earlier moved this Court by filing writ application being CWJC No. 1264 of 1996 (R) for
quashing the order dated 24.7.1995, by which the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Store Keeper to the post of Store
Keeper was denied by the respondents on the ground that the departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. This Court vide order
dated 8.9.1997 dismissed the said writ application filed by the petitioner, after taking into consideration the fact that the stand of the respondents
was that after completion of the departmental proceeding the case for promotion of the petitioner will be considered and it was also directed in the
said order to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings as quickly as possible and then to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion on the basis of the sealed cover policy.
2. It is stated that subsequently the petitioner was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the said departmental proceeding vide letter
dated 19/20-12-1997. It is further stated that the during the pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceeding a second chargesheet was issued
for different charges to the petitioner on 4.2.1995 for which second departmental proceeding was conducted and vide office order dated
25.2.2000 the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect.
3. The case of the petitioner in the present writ application is that he has illegally been denied promotion to the post of Store Keeper though other
persons junior to him have been promoted to the said post.
4. The stand of the respondents as would appear from their counter affidavit is that in the Departmental promotion Committee meeting held on
21.12.1992 the name of the petitioner was placed at the bottom of the panel by the Committee as the petitioner had only secured 28 points and
therefore, he was denied promotion and it is not correct to say that the case of the petitioner for promotion for promotion to the post of Store
Keeper was not considered rather the case of the petitioner for the promotion was considered and he was not found fit to be promoted.
5. The further stand of the respondents are that the petitioner has been awarded punishment in the second departmental proceeding by order dated
21/25-2-2000 whereby the penalty of stoppage one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed vide Annexure-12 to the writ
application and therefore, the petitioner was not promoted.
6. The petitioner has asserted that appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order imposing penalty of stoppage one increment with cumulative
effect is still pending before the appellate authority. This fact has not been denied or controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and respective submissions of the parties in my opinion, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner at this stage.
8. However, since the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21/25-2-2000 as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application is
still pending, respondents are hereby directed to take all possible steps to dispose of the appeal, if not already disposed of and to pass appropriate
a reasoned order within the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observation/direction this writ application is dismissed.
