M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is an Assistant registrar in the Department of Co-operation in the State Government has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of co-operative Societies with effect from the date when his junior was promoted. ( 2 ) ALL relevant facts of the case are not in dispute. They are as follows: the petitioner was working as an assistant Registrar of Co-operartive societies. On 22-3-76 a departmental enquiry was instituted against him on the following charges: 1. The Chief Accounts Officer of the K. S. C. M. F. Ltd. , Bangalore took up the inspection and stock verification of the Central Depot, bangalore, in pursuance of Circular no. 6230-68 dated 11-2-73. During the course of such verification serious irregularities such as non-maintenance of cash book, preferring cash bills and collecting cheques from private parties and T. A. P. C. M. S. , non remittance of cheques to Head office, but shown as remitted to h. O. of K. S. C. M. F. Ltd. ,, Bangalore in the fortnightly statement of accounts submitted by the officer incharge of Central Depot Bangalore and non-verification of fortnightly statement of H. O. etc. It is also noticed that cheques worth Rs. 12,15,152-50 were not received at H. O. of K. S. C. M. F. Ltd. , Bangalore for the period from 17-3-72 to 31. 12. 73. Out of the said amount an amount of Rs. 8,64,208-44 was outstanding in the name of M/s Manjunatha Chemicals and Fertilisers (P) Ltd. , Bangalore. He being the Secretary, Accounts section in K. S. C. M. F. Ltd. , bangalore H. O. has failed to arrange for the scrutiny of the fortnightly statements submitted by the officer in-charge of Central Depot, bangalore from time to time. He has failed to discharge his duties and held responsible for negligence of duties. 2. He has misled the K. S. C. M. F. Ltd. , Bangalore, by adjusting the differences between the sales and remittance as sundry debtor, there-by manipulating the accounts and consequently correctness of the balance sheet. ( 3 ) HE has failed to investigate the reasons for short remittance by the officer incharge Central Depot of k. S. C. M. F. , Ltd. , at Bangalore. ( 3 ) HE has failed to investigate the reasons for short remittance by the officer incharge Central Depot of k. S. C. M. F. , Ltd. , at Bangalore. " departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Sometime earlier to January 1979, enquiry report was submitted by the Registrar , of co-operative Societies to the State government finding the petitioner guilty of the charges and also recommending the imposition of penalty of reduction in rank to the cadre of district Auditors. On 11-1-1979 the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for the purpose of considering the cases of Assistant registrars for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Registrars considered the case of the petitioner and 23 other officers. The petitioner was at Sl. No. 4 among them. He and 21 other officers out of whom 18 persons were juniors were considered fit for promotion to the cadre of Deputy registrars. In the concluding portion of the recommendation the committee stated as follows:"the Registrar of CS mentioned that Sri Sadashiva who has been selected by the Departmental Promotion committee is involved in a departmental enquiry and that he has recommended for demotion of sri A. Sadashiva from the cadre of assistant Registrar of CS to that of district Auditor. The committee therefore opined that the promotion of Sri A. Sadashiva may be taken up after Government takes a final decision about imposing penalty of the A. G. O. "'hereafter on 25-1-79, 14 Assistant registrars were prompted as Deputy registrars. Out of them 4 persons, namely, P. Srinivasaprabhu, K. Namadev Naik, M. D. Suvarna and g. R. Nanjundaiah were juniors to the petitioner. As the petitioner was not promoted, he has presented this writ petition. 3. Sri S. V. Narasimhan, learned high Court Government Pleader, appearing for the State, submitted that after considering the report of the Registrar, the State Government was of the opinion that there were serious infirmities in the enquiry conducted by the Registrar and, therefore, there should be a de novo enquiry and made an order to that effect on 4-2-80. Sri Mohandas Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a fresh charge memo has been served only in March 1981. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the pendency of the enquiry on the charges set out earlier was no ground to deny the promotion to the petitioner. Sri Mohandas Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a fresh charge memo has been served only in March 1981. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that the pendency of the enquiry on the charges set out earlier was no ground to deny the promotion to the petitioner. In support of this submission he relied on the Official Memorandum dated 14-4-1966 issued by the State Government laying down the principles regarding withholding of promotion of a Government servant against whom enquiry was pending (Annexure-D) which reads-"instructions have been issued in o. M. No. GAD (S. 1) 56 SSR 59 dated 9th October 1959 in the matter of promotion of officers whose conduct comes under departmental enquiry and who are subsequently exonerated. 2. Government have considered the question further and in modification of the instructions contained in the O. M. cited in para 2 above, hereby issue the following instructions for the guidance of the appointing and disciplinary authorities. (a) While considering the question of promotion of a Government Servant from one grade to another the fact that a departmental enquiry is pending against him whatever may be the stage of the enquiry should not be taken into consideration except in those cases where the Goovernment servant is under suspension. In determining the quantum of punishment at the culmination of the enquiry, the fact that the officer has in the meantime been promoted may be taken into account. (b) If the offence for which a departmental enquiry is started against a Government servant is so serious that his further promotion would not be in public interest, the Government servant concerned should be placed under suspension, forthwith and the question of his promotion, if any, should be decided after completion of the enquiry in accordance with instructions issued in O. M. dated 9th october 1959. 3. All departmental enquiries should be completed a within period of six months in order to avoid hardships to the accused Government servants. Officers and officials responsible for delay in holding and finalising departmental enquiries will be held personally responsible, if inordinate delays come to Government notice. " (Underlining (italics) by me ). He submitted that as the petitioner had not been placed under suspension, there was no justification for denying the promotion due to the petitioner. Officers and officials responsible for delay in holding and finalising departmental enquiries will be held personally responsible, if inordinate delays come to Government notice. " (Underlining (italics) by me ). He submitted that as the petitioner had not been placed under suspension, there was no justification for denying the promotion due to the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE submission made on behalf of the petitioner, in my opinion, is well founded. The right to equality of opportunity in matters relating to promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under clause (1) of Art. 16 of the Constitution. Therefore the power to withhold promotion during the pendency of a departmental enquiry has to be exercised reasonably and in public interest. If on the facts and circumstances of a given case, it is found that it was unreasonable to keep the promotion of a civil servant in abevance, such withholding of promotion would result in the infraction of the right guaranteed under Art. 16 of the Constitution the departmental enquiry was commenced against the petitioner as early as on 22-3-76. Though the registrar had submitted his report earlier to January, 1979, the State government took a decision only on 4-2-1980 to direct the holding of a denovo enquiry against the petitioner as it felt that the enquiry held by the Registrar was defective. Charge memo for the purpose of holding a de novo enquiry was issued one year thereafter, i. e. , in March 1981. Thus the enquiry is pending for more then five years. All along the petitioner has been disehargin'g the duties of the post of Assistant Registrar. He has not been placed under suspension, which indicates that the Government has not considered that the charges levelled against the petitioner are so serious as to warrant the placing of him under suspension. The D. P. C. has found him fit for promotion. Therefore the denial of promotion to the petitioner is unreasonable having regard to the criteria laid down by the Government itself in the matter of promotion of Government servants during the pendency of an enquiry in the official Memorandum dated 11-4-66 (Annexure-D ). The State government could not have treated the petitioner's case differently. 8. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the petition. Accordingly, I make the following order: (I) Rule made absolute. The State government could not have treated the petitioner's case differently. 8. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the petition. Accordingly, I make the following order: (I) Rule made absolute. (II) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue directing the State government to consider the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion committee made in its meeting held on 11-1-79 and after such consideration if the Government accepts the said recommendation, it shall give effect to promotion to the petitioner to the cadre of Deputy Registrars with effect from 27-1-79 on which date the junior of the petitioner was promoted. (III) The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits permissible under law. (IV) It is however made clear that notwithstanding the promotion of the petitioner, the Government shall be at liberty to take into account the fact that petitioner has been promoted during the pendency of the enquiry and to pass appropriate order in the disciplinary proceedings, if the petitioner is found guilty of the charges framed against him. (V) Time for compliance three months. (VI) No costs. --- *** --- .