ORDER 1. The respondent, even though he has been duly served, has not appeared. 2. Leave granted. 3. Since in the notice that was issued to the respondent it was indicated that the matter would be finally disposed of at the notice stage, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on this appeal. 4. This appeal arises out of a writ petition (OJC No. 4179 of 1990) filed by the respondent in the High Court of Orissa. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under. 5. The respondent was employed in the Junior Management Grade Scale 1 with the appellant-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and on 12-5-1987 the disciplinary authority imposed upon the respondent the penalty of reduction of basic pay by three stages. Although the appellate authority, by order dated 23-7-1989, modified the order of punishment by imposing reduction of basic pay by one stage only but the reviewing authority, by order dated 29-3-1990, set aside the said order passed by the appellate authority and restored the punishment that was imposed by the disciplinary authority, namely, reduction of basic pay by three stages. The said punishment was operative till 12-5-1990. In the meanwhile, promotions were made to Middle Management Grade Scale II (hereinafter referred to as MMGS-II) with effect from 1-8-1986. The respondent was not considered for such promotion in view of the debarment policy that is followed by the appellant-Bank in the matter of promotions. In relation to the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale the said policy prescribes : "1. Reduction to a lower stage in a time scale. - The officer is not eligible for consideration for promotion till the rigour period is over i.e. till the pay is restored to the level before the punishment." 6. In the writ petition, the respondent challenged the legality of the order of punishment inflicted upon him in the disciplinary proceedings as well as the non-consideration of his case for promotion to MMGS-II with effect from 1-8-1986. From the judgment of the High Court, it appears that during the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent did not assail the legality of the order of punishment which was inflicted upon him. The High Court has also observed that it was done so rightly. From the judgment of the High Court, it appears that during the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent did not assail the legality of the order of punishment which was inflicted upon him. The High Court has also observed that it was done so rightly. The only question which, therefore, remained to be considered by the High Court was whether the respondent had been rightly excluded from consideration for promotion to MMGS-II during the period the punishment imposed on him was operative. The High Court has held that the non-consideration of the respondent for promotion to MMGS-II during the period the punishment was operative has resulted in violation of the right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the High Court, the impugned order of punishment passed against the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings did not in any way disentitle him from being considered for promotion to MMGS-II with effect from 1-8-1986 if he was otherwise eligible for being considered. The High Court has directed the appellants to consider the respondents case for promotion with effect from 1-8-1986 to MMGS-II and if he is found suitable in accordance with law, then promote him with effect from the date he was found suitable. Feeling aggrieved by the said directions of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal. 7. The only question which requires consideration is whether in pursuance of the debarment policy laid down by the appellant-Bank, the respondent has been rightly excluded from consideration for promotion on account of the penalty of reduction of pay being operative when such promotion came up for consideration. This question has been considered by this Court in Union of India v. K. Krishnan [1992 Supp (3) SCC 50 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 995 : (1992) 21 ATC 842]. In that case the punishment of withholding of increment in salary for a period of one year and six months had been imposed on the employee and as a result of the said penalty the employee, who was successful at the test for promotion prior to the imposition of penalty, was not promoted in view of Rule 157 of the Post and Telegraph Manual - Vol. III which provided that even where the competent authority considers the candidate fit for promotion in spite of punishment in a departmental proceeding the promotion shall not be given effect to during the currency of the penalty. This Court, after referring to the said Rule, has observed : (SCC p. 52, para 4) "We have considered the matter closely and in our opinion the view taken by the Tribunal both in the impugned judgment and in the earlier decisions holding that as a result of the provisions of Rule 157 forbidding the promotion of a State employee during the currency of the penalty results in a second punishment, is not correct. There is only one punishment visiting the respondent as a result of the conclusion reached in the disciplinary proceeding leading to the withholding of increment, and the denial of promotion during the currency of the penalty is merely a consequential result thereof. The view that a government servant for the reason that he is suffering a penalty or a disciplinary proceeding cannot at the same time be promoted to a higher cadre is a logical one and no exception can be taken to Rule 157. It is not correct to assume that Rule 157 by including the aforementioned provision is subjecting the government servant concerned to double jeopardy. We do not find any merit in the argument that there is no justification or rationale behind this policy; nor do we any reason to condemn it as unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, to punish a servant and at the same time to promote him during the currency of punishment may justifiably be termed as self-contradictory." 8. Similarly, in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [ (1991) 4 SCC 109 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 387 : (1993) 23 ATC 322], this Court has laid down : (SCC p. 123, para 29) "An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct." 9. Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the action of the appellant-Bank in not considering the respondent for promotion to MMGS-II during the currency of the penalty of reduction in basic pay that was imposed on him cannot be held to be violative of his right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the said decision of the appellant-Bank on that ground. The directions given by the High Court for considering the case of the respondent for promotion to MMGS-II with effect from 1-8-1986 cannot be sustained and are, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.