JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the matter of Central Bank of India (Officers' Service) Regulations, 1979 and the promotion policy for officers of Central Bank of India and the writ petition is directed against the decision of the respondent Bank i.e. Central Bank of India as contained in the letter dated 25th August, 1989 (Annexure/27) denying release of petitioner's promotion from Junior Management Gr. I to Middle Management Grade Scale-II. The petitioner has come with the case that he was initially appointed as a clerk with effect from 1st February, 1963 by memorandum dated 1st February, 1963. He was promoted as Sub-Accountant (Junior Management Grade Scale-I) with posting at Vijaynagar by memorandum dated 20th January, 1971. The petitioner was given posting as Agent "C-Class" at Jhalawar Branch vide memo dated 23rd August, 1974 and thereafter he was transferred and posted as Branch Manager at Gordhanpur Circle, Kota Office by the Divisional Manager vide his letter dated 30th December, 1976. During the petitioner's working at Gordhanpura Circle, Kota Office, an FIR was lodged against the then Divisional Manager, D.R. Malhan and the petitioner was also named as an accused in this FIR. The petitioner's case is that this FIR was an outcome of rivalry between D.R. Malhan and the then Divisional Manager, Kota and the Chief Manager, New Delhi R.P. Sharma and both of them are now retired. The petitioner has alleged that in the year 1976 D.R. Malhan had investigated some complaints against R.P. Sharma who was then working as Divisional Manager at Amritsar. As R.P. Sharma had secured a job for his son in Oriental Bank of Commerce by diverting the deposits of the Bank to Oriental Bank of Commerce, a civil suit was instituted by the Central Bank of India against some borrowers and the petitioner was also arrayed as one of the defendants in the said Civil Suit. The petitioner's case is that he was placed under suspension vide letter dated 5th July, 1979 issued by R.P. Sharma, Chief Manager. Regional Office, New Delhi (which is now a Zonal Office). This order dated 5th July, 1979 is a suspension order of the petitioner and is Annexure/4 to the writ petition. The respondent Bank issued memorandum dated 29th August, 1979 to the petitioner calling upon his explanation and the petitioner submitted reply to this memorandum on 22nd September, 1979. Regional Office, New Delhi (which is now a Zonal Office). This order dated 5th July, 1979 is a suspension order of the petitioner and is Annexure/4 to the writ petition. The respondent Bank issued memorandum dated 29th August, 1979 to the petitioner calling upon his explanation and the petitioner submitted reply to this memorandum on 22nd September, 1979. Yet another memorandum was issued in his name by the respondent Bank on 30th November, 1979, which was replied by the petitioner on 20th December, 1979. The petitioner has alleged that after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the replies dated 22nd September, 1979 and 20th December, 1979 given by him, the suspension order dated 5th July, 1979 was unconditionally withdrawn vide letter dated 16th January, 1980 issued by the Regional Manager of the respondent Bank. This letter is Annexure/5. Accordingly, the petitioner joined back in the then Divisional Manager's Office (now, known as Regional Manager's Office) at Jaipur on 21st January, 1980 and was entrusted with the work of inspection, operation, etc. on which post he worked from 21st January, 1980 to 30th June, 1984. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the work and duties of the Incharge (Planning and Development Department) were entrusted to the petitioner by the management and this work and duties were of and officer of Middle Management Grade Scale-II, which he discharged from 1st July, 1984 to 25th October, 1989. By a memorandum dated 2th October, 1989, issued by the Regional Manager the petitioner was transferred from the Regional Office to Chandpol Branch, Jaipur as Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officer. Thus, the petitioner had worked from 1st July, 1984 to 25th October, 1989 as Middle Management Grade Scale-II Officer. After about 11 days, vide Regional Office letter dated 6th November, 1989, the petitioner was again transferred from Chandpole Branch to Ajmer. 2. The petitioner has submitted that as per the seniority list of Branch Managers and other Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officer of Delhi Region as on 31st December, 1978 published by the Bank, the petitioner's name appeared at S.No. 24 in the seniority list (Annx. 17) as on 31st December, 1978. This seniority list includes 95 Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officers in all and the petitioner being at Sr. 17) as on 31st December, 1978. This seniority list includes 95 Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officers in all and the petitioner being at Sr. No. 24 was senior to the other 71 Junior Management Grade Scale-I Officers in the then Delhi Region, which is now Delhi Zone and the petitioner's grievance is that barring a few of the officers whose names are below him all officers junior to him have already been promoted to higher grade scales. The petitioner has also given the details of such officers junior to him who have been promoted to Senior Management Grade Scale IV, Middle Management Grade Scale III. The petitioner has then referred to the seniority list Annexure/18. which is again a seniority list of Branch Managers Junior Management Grade Scale I officers as on 31st October, 1978 and has submitted that in this list his name finds place at Sr. No. 29, whereas the officers whose names are below 29 have been promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II and Senior Management Grade Scale-IV. The petitioner has further alleged that vide memorandum dated 15th May, 1979, he was required to appear before the interview committee on 24tn May, 1979 at the then Regional Office for promotion to Grade-E (now, M.M. Gr. II). This letter dated 15th May, 1979 was received at the place of his work i.e. Kota after 21st May, 1979, when he had already proceeded to Cochin. The order dated 21st May, 1979 had been passed by the Divisional Manager, Kota requiring the petitioner to go to Cochin for taking delivery of goods and being unaware that he was required to appear in interview on 24th May, 1979 because he was at a far distant place like Cochin under the orders of the Divisional Manager, he was deprived of the consideration of his candidature for promotion on 21th May 1979, as he came to know about the memorandum dated 15th May, 1979 only on his return to Kota from Cochin and Calcutta in the 1st week of July, 1979. As a result of this interview, the officers junior to him were promoted and the petitioner protested against the same. As a result of this interview, the officers junior to him were promoted and the petitioner protested against the same. He has placed on record a copy of the representation dated 2nd August, 1980, but he was replied by letter dated 3rd February 1981 that he had been given a chance to appear in the interview but he failed to appeal on 24ih May, 1979, it was also mentioned in the letter dated 3rd August, 1981 that as the petitioner had been subsequently placed under suspension, he was not called for interview on some other date after 24/5/1979. Whereas the petitioner's submission is that on 24th May, 1979, he was not under suspension and, could not appear in the interview on the said date because he was out to Cochine and Calcutta on Bank's duty under the instructions of the competent officers and had no knowledge that he was required to appear for interview on 24th May, 1979. 3. Next time the petitioner was called for interview in 1981 and he was found suitable for promotion from Junior Management Grade Scale 1 to MMG Scale-II (Erstwhile Gr. Scale E). Although, the petitioner was found suitable for promotion, but the promotion was withheld on the ground that disciplinary action was pending. A letter dated 11th November, 1983 was sent to the petitioner mentioning therein that a disciplinary action was in process against the petitioner and, therefore, he was permitted to take part in the promotion process in terms of Clause 3.9 of the promotion policy and further that he had been found to be suitable for promotion, but the same was withheld until completion of the disciplinary action. This letter dated 11th November. 1983 has been placed on record as Annexure/23. The petitioner submitted an application dated 10th April, 1985 claiming promotion from 24th May, 1979. Again in the year 1987 when the promotion process was going to be conducted, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21st July, 1987 reiterating his grievance and further requesting that he may be allowed to appear in the promotion process from MM Grade Scale-II to MM Grade Scale-III. He was still not called for interview nor any intimation was given to him and therefore, he submitted a representation on 11th November, 1988. He was still not called for interview nor any intimation was given to him and therefore, he submitted a representation on 11th November, 1988. Ultimately the petitioner received a letter dated 25th August, 1989 sent to him by the Assistant Regional Manager informing him the decision taken by the Central Office, Bombay through the Zonal Office. Delhi and it was mentioned in this letter dated 25th August, 1989 that since the Departmental action against the petitioner had been kept in abeyance because of the pendency of the criminal case, the matter relating to releasing of his promotion to MM Grade Scale II could not be considered This letter dated 25th August, 1989 is Annexure/27 which is impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner's submission is that no departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner and that this was evident from document Annexure/28 dated 15th December, 1987, wherein it was mentioned that, "As informed by our Legal Department there is no departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner." The petitioner has also placed on record several appreciation letters Annexures 29 to Annexure 43 which were issued between 5th August, 1979 to 19th Nov., 1987 and has submitted that his performance has been excellent. 4. The petitioner's submission is that the promotion and other service conditions of the officers of the Bank are governed by the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 made by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 read with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Regulation 17 relates to the promotion which provides rules for promotion. Clause (1) of Regulation 17 provides that promotion to all grades of officers in the Bank shall be made in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board from time to time having regard to the guidelines of the Government, if any. These regulations came into force from 1st July, 1979 and grade scales have been renomenclatured accordingly. Under Regulation 17, the Officers Junior Management Grade Scale-I are to be promoted to MM Grade Scale-II and from MM Grade Scale-II to MM Grade Scale-III and from MM Grade Scale-III to Senior Management Grade Scale IV and so on. These regulations came into force from 1st July, 1979 and grade scales have been renomenclatured accordingly. Under Regulation 17, the Officers Junior Management Grade Scale-I are to be promoted to MM Grade Scale-II and from MM Grade Scale-II to MM Grade Scale-III and from MM Grade Scale-III to Senior Management Grade Scale IV and so on. The petitioner has then referred to para 3.9 of the promotion policy, which is reproduced as under:- "Officers in respect of whom disciplinary action is in process, will however, be permitted to take part in the promotion process, subject to the condition that the promotion will be withheld until the completion of the disciplinary action. In the event of the officer being exonerated, the promotion, if due, will be given effect to from the date on which it would have been otherwise effected but for the disciplinary action." 5. The petitioner's submission on the basis of para 3.9 of the Promotion Policy is that, in fact, no disciplinary action can be said to be in process against the petitioner and, therefore, there is no question of placing the same in abeyance and withholding of promotion and further that even if disciplinary action has been kept in abeyance it could not be said that any disciplinary action was in process against the petitioner. Aggrieved from withholding of the promotion, as above, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court on 16th December, 1989 with the prayer that Bank's decision as contained in Annexure/27 dated 25th August, 1989 may be quashed and set as de and the respondents be directed to release the promotion of the petitioner from JM Grade Scale-I to MM Grade-II from 1979 and from MM Grade Scale-II to MM Grade-III from 1st October, 1988 and from MM Grade-III to MM Grade IV from the date when the officers junior to him were promoted, with all consequential benefits alongwith arrears and interest, be ordered to be paid. 6. 6. An additional affidavit dated 3rd September, 1990 was filed stating therein that Criminal Case No. 1/1982, wherein the petitioner is one of the accused alongwith other 8 persons is pending since 1982 and so far even charge has not been framed despite lapse of 8 years after filing of the challan and that the framing of charge has been delayed because the prosecution has suppressed material documents and has not supplied the relevant documents before the Special Judge, CBI, Jaipur. In support of this the petitioner has quoted the order-sheet dated fifth July, 1990 from the proceedings of criminal case No. 1 of 1982 pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jaipur. In para 3 of the additional affidavit, while makings reference to civil case in which the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant, the petitioner has quoted the portion of the letter dated 1st November, 1989 sent by Satya Deo Sharma, Advocate Supreme Court of India counsel for the Bank advising the Bank not to implead the petitioner and D.R. Malhan as defendants in the suit. 7. In this writ petition, the Court ordered show cause notice to be issued to the respondent on 15th October, 1989 as to why the writ petition should not be admitted. Thereafter when the matter came up before the Court on petitioner's stay application, it was urged by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter may be finally disposed of instead of deciding the stay application and the matter was posted on 3rd September 1990. On 3rd September, 1990, the counsel for the Bank again sought time to tile affidavit on behalf of the respondent and the matter was ported for final disposal at orders stage on 11th September, 1990. The additional affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 was filed on 10th September, 1990 and the matter was finally heard on 11th September, 1990. 8. The additional affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 was filed on 10th September, 1990 and the matter was finally heard on 11th September, 1990. 8. Besides the application dated 22nd May, 1990 filed on 23th May, 1990 as a reply to the stay application on behalf of the Central Bank of India and others an affidavit in opposition to the application for stay filed on 1st September, 1990 alongwith Annexure/A. Annexure B/1 to B/4, an additional affidavit was also filed on 10th September, 1990 on behalf of respondent No. 1 in opposition to the writ petition alongwith Annexure B/5 to B/8 and one more additional affidavit No. 2 was filed with Annexures B/9 and B/10. Through the application, affidavits and documents, as aforesaid, the respondents have sought to traverse the claim of the petitioner. The case set up by the respondents is that the departmental action was put in abeyance because of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner and the matter relating to release of the petitioner's promotion to MM Grade Scale II cannot be considered at present and unless the petitioner is promoted to MM Gr. Scale-II from JM Gr. Scale I, the question of his further promotion does not arise. It has been admitted in para 5 at page 491 of the paper book, internal page 7 of the additional affidavit of I.S. Wadhon filed on 10th September, 1990 that the petitioner was found suitable for promotion from JM Gr. Scale I to MM Gr. Scale II and he was informed of the same by letter dated 11th November, 1983 and by the same letter he was informed that his promotion has been withheld on account of departmental action which was in process. The respondents have also placed reliance on clause 3.9 of Promotion Policy. It has been pleaded that the petitioner did not challenge the decision of the Bank earlier and the writ petition was highly belated and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief on account of laches. It has been stated that the disciplinary action process had been started by the Bank against the petitioner in the year 1979 and thereafter criminal investigation by the CBI continued and finally the criminal case was instituted before the Court which is still pending. It has been stated that the disciplinary action process had been started by the Bank against the petitioner in the year 1979 and thereafter criminal investigation by the CBI continued and finally the criminal case was instituted before the Court which is still pending. Merely because the disciplinary action has not advanced further, but has remained pending, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner stands exonerated. It has been submitted that the petitioner belongs to the category of gold cohered employee and if the alleged acts of misconduct and/or criminal charges are proved, he would obviously be liable for the consequences of the same instead of being entitled to be promoted and given the benefit for promotion from Junior Management Gr. I to MM Gr. II. It has been stated in para 6 of the additional affidavit filed on 10th September, 1990 that the criminal case is pending against the petitioner with regard to the allegation of fraud, cheating and abusing the official position, criminal conspiracy, exceeding powers/norms of bank dishonestly and fraudulently, purchar sing of over-invoiced and inflated bills of huge amounts in collusion with and in violation of circulars and rules of the Bank, extending credit facilities beyond permissible limits to persons/firms black-listed by the Reserve Bank of India and who had allegedly cheated the Hindustan Commercial Bank and who had hypothecated with the bank husk and sent gunny bags instead of rice/paddy etc. which acts and/or omissions on the part of the petitioner had seriously jeopard sed the interests of the bank and resulted in financial loss of about Rs. 30 lacs. On the aforesaid premises, it has been submitted that in the public interest it is necessary that such an officer against whom such allegations of serious misconduct exist, does not deserve to be promoted pending the decision o,f the same. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is responsible for the delay in the progress of the criminal case. Regarding the opinion of Shri S. D. Sharma, it has been stated that it is a privileged communication and the same is inadmissible in law. 9. It has been further submitted that the petitioner is responsible for the delay in the progress of the criminal case. Regarding the opinion of Shri S. D. Sharma, it has been stated that it is a privileged communication and the same is inadmissible in law. 9. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent, it is a common ground that though the criminal case is pending, so far no charge-sheet whatsoever has been served upon the petitioner and in the name of disciplinary action all that was done was to place the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 5th July, 1979. Under Regulation 12(1)(a) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, a memorandum dated 29th August, 1979 (Annx. 9) calling upon the petitioner's explanation was issued. This suspension was also withdrawn on 16th January, 1980 and he was reinstated. Although, there is no mention in this order dated 16th January, 1980 withdrawing suspension regarding the cons deration of petitioner's replies, it is a fact which cannot be lost sight of that this suspension was withdrawn after the petitioner's detailed reply dated 22nd September, 1979 (Annx. 10). which he had filed as his explanation to memorandum dated 29th August, 1979. Although, the respondents in their reply have described the withdrawal of suspension as an act of indulgence, the fact remains that for all these years i.e. ever since 1979, even the charge sheet has not been served upon the petitioner so as to make out a case of disciplinary action being in process against the petitioner. The respondents have come out with the case that whereas the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar v. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., ( AIR 1988 SC 2118 ) has held that while there could be no legal bar for simultaneous proceedings being taken, yet there may be cases where it can be appropriate to defer the disciplinary proceedings waiting disposal of the criminal case and the bank's decision to put the disciplinary action in abeyance is in conformity with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 10. 10. So far as the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner in the criminal case is concerned, it will not be proper for this Court to express any opinion either way, more particularly when in this case the question which has been raised is the question which is confined to the scope of Clause 3.9 of the Promotion Policy. It is too much to call a Jr. MM Grade Scale I Officer to be a golden collared employee and the petitioner's case cannot be looked at with a prejudice merely because of the description of the allegations in criminal case which is still crawling. In order to regulate promotions, promotion policy has been framed by the Bank. It is common ground of the parties that so far as the promotion policy is concerned, the pendency of the criminal case has not been provided as any bar to promotion and the only bar is under Clause 3.9 of the said Promotion Policy. According to Clause 3.9 of the Promotion Policy, the promotion is to be withheld until the completion of the disciplinary action and the argument advanced by Shri Mathur for the Bank is that the disciplinary action is in process against the petitioner and, therefore, he was permitted to take part in the promotion process under Clause 3.9 and under the very same clause, his promotion has been withheld because the disciplinary action has not been completed. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents with reference to the instructions issued by the Central Bank of India in the name of disciplinary action procedure and further that under instruction No. 4 with the heading of 'procedure' and the contents of instructions thereunder so that the calling of explanation is the first step of the procedure and, therefore, once the petitioner's explanation has been called,the disciplinary action came into process against the petitioner and thereafter whet ei the charge-sheet has been served upon or not, whether the inquiry has started or not is not material and the disciplinary action against the petitioner must be said to be in process against him and accordingly the promotion has been rightly withheld under Clause 3.9 because the process starts with the issue of the notice under Instruction 4.1. Instruction 4.1 to 4.3 are reproduced as under for ready reference:- 4.1 Show cause notice Whenever an act of misconduct comes to the notice of the Bank's official, as a first step, a "show cause notice" will be required to be served on the employee, detailing the act (s) of misconduct and asking him to submit his explanation in writing within a period of 7 days from the receipt of office memo. This memo (Draft A) can be signed by any superior of the employee and need not necessarily be signed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4.2 If the employee asks for extention of time for submitting his explanation a reasonable extension say of seven days may be given if the concerned officer (one who has issued the original memo) is satisfied about the genuineness of the request. 4.3 When the explanation is received, a detailed report should be forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority with the comments of superior as to whether the explanation is acceptable or unacceptable to him." 11. In the additional affidavit No. 2 filed on behalf to the respondent Bank by Shri Indersen Wadhon, it has been stated that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was kept in abeyance by the Board vide its resolution dated 1st November, 1985 and, at that time, the Chief Manager of the Regional Office was the Disciplinary Authority and that the enquiry was not conducted against the petitioner as per the advice of the Superintendent of Police, CBJ, SPE, CIU (B), New Delhi dated 25th June, 1985. The enquiry may not have been held against the petitioner for any reason-whether in view of the letters sent by the Superintendent of Police or the resolution passed by the Board by which the enquiry was placed in abeyance and, even if the argument of Shri Mathur is accepted that it was permissible for the respondent Bank to defer disciplinary proceedings waiting for the disposal of the criminal case, the question which arises for consideration in this case is whether any disciplinary action was in process against the petitioner ? For the purpose of examining this question the first document is Annexure/4 dated 5th July, 1979, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. For the purpose of examining this question the first document is Annexure/4 dated 5th July, 1979, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. The second document is Annexure/9 dated 29th August, 1979, by which the petitioner's explanation was sought and after the petitioner's representation dated 22nd Sept., 1979, the suspension order was withdrawn by order dated 16th January, 1980, Annexure/5, and the petitioner was reinstated. There is no document whatsoever indicating that the disciplinary authority had ever applied its mind on the question of issuing any charge-sheet to the petitioner. Instructions 4.1 to 4.3, which have been reproduced hereinabove go to show that as and when an employee is served with notice asking him to submit his explanation in writing on the allegation of misconduct and when such explanation is offered by the employee and the same is received, the matter is to be reported to the Disciplinary Authority with the comments of the superior as to whether the explanation is acceptable or unacceptable to him, as is required by instructions 4.3. It is on the basis of this material that the Disciplinary Authority has to apply its mind and form an opinion as to whether there are any grounds for enquiring the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an officer and there-upon either the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquire into, or appoint any other public servant to enquire into the truth thereof, as required by regulation 6 (2) of the Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, which is reproduced as under:- "Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an officer/employee, it may itself enquire into, of appoint any other public servant (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority) to enquire into the truth thereof" 12. Thus, on the basis of the instructions read With Discipline and Appeal Regulations, it transpires that the disciplinary action against an employee comes into process only when Disciplinary Authority after considering the explanation furnished by the employee with the aid of the report forwarded to him by the superior officer with comments forms an opinion that there are grounds for enquiring into the truth of imputation of misconduct of misbehaviour and unless and until the Disciplinary Authority applies it mind and forms the opinion under Regulation 6 (2), it cannot be said that the disciplinary action is in process. The process of the disciplinary action would only commence at the stage of Regulation 6 (2) with the formation of the opinion by the Disciplinary Authority that there are grounds for enquiring into the truth of imputation of misconduct. Admittedly, in this case, the Disciplinary Authority never formed the opinion under Regulation 6 (2) that there are grounds for holding such an enquiry against the petitioner. Even the stage of framing definite and distinct charges comes under Regulation 6 (3) and the stage of regulation 6 (2) is even a stage earlier to Regulation 6 (3), In the facts of this case, admittedly, no charge sheet whatsoever was served upon the petitioner even upto this date, nor any material has been placed on record to show that the Disciplinary Authority had considered the petitioner's explanation and had found the same to be unacceptable and having considered the explanation with the comments of the superior, it had formed an opinion under Regulation 6 (3) that there were grounds for enquiring into the truth of imputation of misconduct. In this view of the matter, the fact situation obtaining in this case is that the disciplinary action did not even come into process against petitioner and, therefore, to say that the same was kept in abeyance is rather prepostrous. Even if it is assumed that there was any iota of material or a contemplation to consider as to whether any disciplinary act on should be said to be in process against the petitioner, the same was kept in abeyance at a stage even before it could come into process and, in this view of the matter. Even if it is assumed that there was any iota of material or a contemplation to consider as to whether any disciplinary act on should be said to be in process against the petitioner, the same was kept in abeyance at a stage even before it could come into process and, in this view of the matter. I have no hesitation in holding that disciplinary action, in the facts of this case, never came into process against the petitioner and hence for the purpose of Clause of the promotion policy it cannot be said that any disciplinary action was in process against the petitioner. When the disciplinary action was not in process against the petitioner, he was allowed to participate in the process of promotion and was also found to be suitable for promotion, there was no basis to deny and deprive the petitioner of promotion for which he had already been found to be suitable. 13. Thus, I find that once the petitioner has been found to be suitable for promotion from Junior Management Gr. Scale I to MM Gr. Scale II on the basis of the interview held in 1981, there is no justification to withhold the petitioner's promotion on the basis that any disciplinary action was in process against the petitioner and, hence, the Bank's decision to withhold the petitioner's promotion was in contravention of para 3.9 of the Promotion Policy. The communication dated 11th November, 1983, Annx. 23, which was sent to the petitioner, conveying that his promotion is withheld until the completion of the disciplinary action and the order dated 25th June, 1989 (Annx. 27) cannot be said to be in order and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner's promotion from Junior Management Gr. Scale I to MM Gr. Scale II from 1981 when the petitioner was found to be suitable. So far as the petitioner's claim for promotion from Junior Management Gr. Scale I to MM Gr. 27) cannot be said to be in order and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner's promotion from Junior Management Gr. Scale I to MM Gr. Scale II from 1981 when the petitioner was found to be suitable. So far as the petitioner's claim for promotion from Junior Management Gr. Scale I to MM Gr. Scale II from 1979 is concerned, it would be sufficient to say that the petitioner was deprived of his right of consideration in the year 1979 for the reasons beyond his control and comprehension because He did not abstain in the selection held in the year 1979, on account of his own volition and it is an undeniable fact that the letter dated 15th May, 1979, requiring the petitioner to be present before the Interview Committee on 24th May, 1979, was received at the petitioner' place of posting i.e. Kota after 21st May, 1979 when he had already proceeded to Cochin under the orders of the Divisional Manage. Thus, he was virtually prevented by a reasonable and sufficient cause from appearing before the Interview Committee on 24th May, 1979 for no fault on his part. 14. I, therefore, deem it proper to direct that in the year 1979, the petitioner's candidature for promotion from Junior Management Gr. Scale I to Middle Management Gr. Scale II be considered on the basis of his record and candidature as if he is being considered in the year 1979 and, in case he is found to be suitable, such promotion may be accorded to him from 1979. Whether the petitioner is promoted from 1979 or 1981 to Middle Management Gr. II from the date his juniors were promoted, the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits in the matter of payment of arrears, seniority and all further promotions which would have enurred in his favour had he been promoted as MM Gr. Scale II in the year 1979 or 1981, as the case may be, from the date his juniors were so promoted. 15. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Allowed. *******