JUDGMENT Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J 1. After hearing counsel for the appellant and for the respondent and giving the matter our careful consideration, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal should succeed, and that the judgment of the learned Judge should be set aside. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by a Junior Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board against the panel of promotion to the category of Assistant Engineers and the promotion of his juniors, respondents 2 and 3 to that superior cadre. The promotion of the respondents and the denial of promotion to the petitioner was in the year 1970. It is admitted that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is to be assessed on the basis of merit and ability. The post is what is ailed a selection post. The reasons for the denial of promotion to the petitioner have been given in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the State Electricity Board, thus:-- "It is true that when promotions were made from among the qualified Junior Engineers, petitioner along with other qualified Junior Engineers were considered. Though his name was also considered he is not included in the select list because he was not found suitable for promotion. For proved misconduct, his increment was barred twice in 1968. He had to clear the liability of an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs given to him as temporary advance in his official capacity. For these serious irregularities he was not included in the select list. There were adverse remarks as well in his confidential records." The above paragraph properly read and analysed indicates that the two reasons which weighed in the supersession of the writ petitioner were, his proved misconduct which resulted in barring his increment twice in 1968, and the long delay occasioned in clearing his liability for an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs given to him as temporary advance in his official capacity. In the concluding portion of the paragraph in the counter affidavit, that we have extracted above, there is the sentence that there were adverse remarks as well in his confidential records. But we do not understand this as a circumstance that weighed in the supersession of the writ petitioner. In the concluding portion of the paragraph in the counter affidavit, that we have extracted above, there is the sentence that there were adverse remarks as well in his confidential records. But we do not understand this as a circumstance that weighed in the supersession of the writ petitioner. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the entries in the confidentials were taken into account by the Departmental Promotion Committee in assessing the merit and ability of the writ petitioner and that these ought not to have been taken into account, as they had not been communicated to the petitioner and his explanation had not been sought. This is what the learned Judge observed: "When a Departmental Promotion Committee purports to act on the basis of adverse remarks against an officer in the confidential reports relating to him and such remarks are by the relevant rules, required to be communicated to the officer and his reply obtained prior to the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee so that such reply may be available to the committee for perusal, any adverse remarks which there was no occasion for the employee to meet cannot be made the basis of a decision by the committee. If they have been, it must necessarily be said that irrelevant material has been relied on. The counter affidavit mentions that there were adverse remarks against the petitioner. But admittedly these were not remarks which had been conveyed to the petitioner before the selection. He had no occasion to make any representation against them. In fact he could not have even known to what years these adverse remarks related. The rules, it is agreed, require opportunity to be given for representing by way of explanation to the remarks and such representation is to be filed along with the confidential reports so that it is available to the Departmental Promotion Committee to enable it to make an objective assessment of adverse remarks. The counter affidavit would indicate that nevertheless the adverse remarks were noticed by the committee and these remarks went into the ultimate decision against the petitioner. The counter affidavit would indicate that nevertheless the adverse remarks were noticed by the committee and these remarks went into the ultimate decision against the petitioner. I am afraid I must say that irrelevant consideration has therefore vitiated the decision to reject the petitioner's case." (para 7) Dealing with the other grounds noticed in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the learned Judge observed thus: "Lastly the Departmental Promotion Committee had taken note of the fact that the petitioner had been punished earlier for some misconduct by the increments due to him being barred. Withholding of increments is a punishment by itself. Withholding of promotion is also a punishment under the Rules. The mere fact that increments were withheld would not by itself be sufficient to withhold promotion. In these circumstances it is highly doubtful whether the Departmental Promotion Committee would have ever considered the imposition of punishment of barring the increment as a ground by itself for withholding the promotion of the petitioner." (para 9) 2. We regret that we cannot agree with the reasoning or the conclusion of the learned Judge in respect of the above aspect. Counsel for the respondent very fairly and promptly agreed before us that the files regarding the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee were made available before the learned Judge and that these clearly disclosed that the Departmental Promotion Committee had ruled out consideration of the adverse entries in the confidential records on the ground that these had not been disclosed to the writ petitioner and his explanation in respect of the same taken. The learned Judge was therefore wrong in holding that the assessment of the Departmental Promotion Committee had been vitiated by the taking into account of the irrelevant consideration of the uncommunicated adverse entries in the confidential records. 3. Nor can we share the learned Judge's reasoning that withholding of promotion and the conduct of the writ petitioner in not clearing the temporary accommodation of Rs. 2 lakhs given to him in several instalments, were not germane matters, in regard to the assessment of his merit and ability. We are unable to see how it can be said that the withholding of increments being a punishment by itself cannot justify or sustain the further punishment against the writ petitioner of the denial of promotion. 2 lakhs given to him in several instalments, were not germane matters, in regard to the assessment of his merit and ability. We are unable to see how it can be said that the withholding of increments being a punishment by itself cannot justify or sustain the further punishment against the writ petitioner of the denial of promotion. Infliction of the punishment of withholding of increments certainly stigmatises the person in regard to the performance or discharge of his official functions. In that sense, therefore, it is a relevant factor to be taken into account in assessing the merit and ability of the person concerned. The Departmental Promotion Committee was therefore within its limits in considering the infliction of the punishment of withholding of increments on two occasions in 1968. So was it, in considering the other aspect of the matter, namely, the petitioner's conduct in not having cleared his liability in respect of the amount advanced to him as temporary loan. We may observe that on 28th December 1970, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Chief Engineer complaining against the denial of promotion to him and against the promotion of his juniors. To this, the Chief Engineer replied by Ext. P2 memo giving the two grounds for denial of promotion, namely, the barring of increments in 1968 on two occasions and the petitioner not having cleared his liability in respect of the two lakhs of rupees. The petitioner made a further representation, Ext. P3, explaining his position in regard to these grounds or reasons, and the Chief Engineer restated the position by Ext. P4, dated 16th July 1971. Thus there is ample material on record to show the grounds on which the petitioner was denied his promotion, and his juniors, respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition were promoted as Assistant Engineers. 4. In the circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the learned Judge was wrong in projecting interference under Art.226 with the assessment and decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee. We allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that O.P. No. 3798 of 1971 will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.