M. JAGANNADHA RAO, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are connected and can be disposed of togother. ( 2 ) CWP 2852193 was filed on 29-5-93 praying for quashing of a censure awarded to the petitioner by the Chief of Naval Staff (1st respondent) and for directing the respondent to promote the petitioner to the rank of rear Admiral with all consequential benefits on the first available vacancy from any date prior to 4-9-92 when a Junior was promoted to that rank. Later the CWP was amended, seeking also the quashing of the order dated 17-8-93 of the Central Government rejecting the petitioner s statutory complaint. The amended CWP was filed on 7-9-93. ( 3 ) CWP No. 572194 is filed on 31-1-1994. seeking quashing of the order dated 7-1-94 and derecting that petitioner is deemed to have been continued In service and quash confidential Navy Order 16181 as ultra vires of the Navy Act and Regulations and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 and other reliefs. ( 4 ) PETITIONER was working as Commodore in the Navy when he was informed on 27-6-91 that he was selected for prornotion to the rank of Rear Admiral and that he would be promoted when a vacancy arose. On 18-9-91, a Board of Inquiry was constituted by the Naval Head Quarters (NHQ for short) in relation to certain alleged irregularities in supervising the naval stores. At that time petitioner was posted as Director Quality Assurance (Warship Projects) under the Director-General of Quality Assurance, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The petitioner took the stand that he was responsible for his duties to the Department of Defence but not to the Naval Headquaarters. Petitioner stated that he gave evidence in the inquiry before the Board of Inquiry. He was, however, awarded the punishment of displeasure on 12-5-1992 (Annexine C ). He contended that the censure was, even if valid, would be effective only for 6 months from the date of convening of the. Hoard of Inquiry and another consequence was that the promotion to acting higher-rank could be postponed only for a maximum of one year. Petitioner stated that. the lapses which related to the Naval Headquarters (Logistics Deptt.) had no relevance as petitioner was werking in the Defence Department. Hoard of Inquiry and another consequence was that the promotion to acting higher-rank could be postponed only for a maximum of one year. Petitioner stated that. the lapses which related to the Naval Headquarters (Logistics Deptt.) had no relevance as petitioner was werking in the Defence Department. Petitioner was requested only to assist the inquiry and to give evidence and at no time was there any allegation against him. No charges were framed and no inquiry was held against him before censure was awarded. Findings of the Board of Inquiry were supplied only on 15-6-92 after he made a representation on 22-5-92. Thereafter the censure was communicated on 20-5-92. Petitioner made representations on 22-5-92, 29-5-92 21-6-92, 22-6-92 etc. . through his immediate superior officer in the Defence Department. The petitioner learnt that his junior was given promotion as Rear Admiral on 4-9-92. In the next selection, severe juniors were included in the select list and another junior was promoted. Petitioner represented against the delay in disposal of his statutory representations and also prayed for staying his juniors promotions. ( 5 ) ON the basis that petitioner was to retire as Commodore on completion of 54 years (i. e. on 30-4-93) tile pension papers were moved. According to petitioners, if his name continues in the Select List, as on 30-4-93, he would get one more year of service and could continue as Commodore upto 30-4-94. Petitioner made fresh representation on 15-12-92 against the orders retiring him at the completion of 54 years. It appears that the respondents issued an order on 16-12-92 "cancelling" the proposal to retire him on 30-4-93. According to the petitioner, the Chief of Naval Staff orally informed him on 4-5-93 that his statutory representation was allowed by Government, Petitioner says he had put this fact on record by his letter dated 21-5-93 to the Chief of Personne1, Naval Headquarters. ( 6 ) APPREHENDING that on 2-6-93, another promotion Board meeting was going, to be held and his other juniors might be promoted, petitioner filed the writ petition on 28-5-93 for the reliefs already indicated. Thereafter, petitioner s statutory complaint was rejected by the Central Government on 17-8-93 and hence the petitioner amended his writ petition and filed the amended writ on 7-9-93. ( 7 ) AS appears from the counters, the petitioners;. Thereafter, petitioner s statutory complaint was rejected by the Central Government on 17-8-93 and hence the petitioner amended his writ petition and filed the amended writ on 7-9-93. ( 7 ) AS appears from the counters, the petitioners;. representation dated 22-5-92 was initially allowed by the Central Government on 13-4-93, without asking for the comments of the Chief of Naval Staff and the censure was set aside. Of course, this order was not communicated to the petitioner. But then, the Chief of Naval Staff asked the Ministry on 19-4-93 to spell out the reasons for accepting the petitioner s representation and on 18-5-93 he asked the Ministry to "review" its decision on the ground that the representations were not routed through him. On 7-1-94, petitioner s name was deleted from the select list and he was retired with immediate effect as Commodore on ground of completion of 54 years. These orders were served on 17-1-94. Petitioner then filed CWP 572/94 or; 31-1-94 challenging the order dated 7-1-94 retiring him from service. ( 8 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that the Chief of Naval Staff could not award any punishment of Censure under Navy Order 16/81 as the said Navy Order is ultra vires of the Navy Act. It is also contended that the Chief of Naval Staff should have impl emented the orders of the Government setting aside the censure and that, in any event, the Chief of Naval Staff could not have sought a review. The Chief of the Naval Staff could not have sought an interview with the Minister and the Government ought not to have consulted the Chief of Naval Staff in relation to the disposal of a quasijudicial proceeding; Such consultation would show that Government did not apply its mind intependently. The consultation would show that the principle that "justice should not only be done but must A be seen to be done" is violated. As on 30-4-93 (the date of the superannuation i. e. end of 54 years), the petitioner s service got automatically extended by one year to 30-4-94 and therefore the removal of the pettioner s name from the Select List on 7-1-94 and the further order retiring him on 7-1-94 and serving him the same on 17-1-94 were not valid. As on 30-4-93 (the date of the superannuation i. e. end of 54 years), the petitioner s service got automatically extended by one year to 30-4-94 and therefore the removal of the pettioner s name from the Select List on 7-1-94 and the further order retiring him on 7-1-94 and serving him the same on 17-1-94 were not valid. The petitioner was entitled to be pro- moted as Rear Admiral once the one year ban on his promotion came to an end, even. assuming that the Navy Order 16181 was valid. If the impugned order rejecting the petition is to be set aside. and in case it is allowed, the petitioner would have to be promoted as Rear Admiral from the date his junior was promoted and he would retire as Rear Admiral on. 30-4-1995. These are the conten- tions of the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN view of the urgency of the matter it was taken up before 30th April, 1995 and elaborate arguments were submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter arguments were submitted both by Mr. M. Chandrasekharan, counsel for the Union of India. Earlier we had also heard Mr. K. C. Mittal,, Central Government counsel. During the long hearing of the case, we called for the original file of the Government as well as the file of the Naval Staft and perused the same. We have to take into consideration tie various evidence which transpired between the Government of India and Chief of the Naval Staff for purpose of deciding whether there is any illegality. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the censure could not be awarded by the Chief of the Naval Staff under Navy Order 16[81 was not correct. According to them, it was permissible in view of the provisions of Section 81 (n) read with Section 82 (20 ). It was contended for the respondents that whenever an inquiry against a certain person was likely to involve certain other officers also, then the other officers would be allowed to participate in the inquiry and crossexamine the witnesses who might give evidence against such officers. It was pointed out that though the petitioner was given liberty, to cross-examine, he did not avail the same. It was pointed out that though the petitioner was given liberty, to cross-examine, he did not avail the same. He did not cross-examine the witnesses in the Board of Inquiry and it was not permissible now to contend that he was not given opportunity before censure was awarded by the Chief of the Naval Staff. It was also contended that though initially the Government of India had passed an order in favour of the petitioner and in as much as the same was not com- municated, no rights accrued to the petitioner. It was open to the Government to keep the order in abeyance before it was actually communicated. It was open to the Government of India to take into consideration- any facts brought to its notice by the Chief the Naval Staff. Government had been informed by the Chief of the Naval Staff that the original decision to accept the petition was taken by the Government of India without calling for the A record of the Board of Inquiry and therefore, the Government was rightly requested to review its earlier orders. It could not be said that the Government of India was influenced by Chief of the Naval Staff to take a decision against the petitioner. The Chief of Naval Staff had only placed relevant facts before the Government of India. It was also contended that the removal of the petitioner on 7-1-94 from the Select List and also retiring him on the same date was valid. ( 11 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid facts and contentions, the following points arise for consideration; (1) Whether Navy Order 16181 is violative of the provisions of the Navy Act and the Navy Regulations and is void and whether the censure and postponing promotion by one year could not be ordered by the Chief of Naval Staff ? (2) Whether petitioner was awarded. censure without reasonable opportunity to submit his case and- without allowing him to cross-examine the witnesses before the Board of Inquiry ? (2) Whether petitioner was awarded. censure without reasonable opportunity to submit his case and- without allowing him to cross-examine the witnesses before the Board of Inquiry ? (3) Whether the Central Government, when it reversed its earlier decision to set aside the censure, merely relied upon additional material supplied by the Chief of Naval Staff or whether the mind of the Central Government was, in fact, influenced by the Chief of Naval Staff, and whether the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done was violated and the matter should be remitted back to the Central Government ? (4) Whether the deletion of the petitioner s name from the Select List on 7-1-1994 and retiring him as Commodore with immediate effect on 7-1-94 was valid ? POINT 1 ( 12 ) NAVY Order 16181 was issued pursuant to Clause 2 (e) of the Navy Regulations, 1965 which delegated power to the Chief of the Naval Staff to issue such orders. Of course. Navy order cannot be violative of the provisions of the Navy Act or the Navy Regulations. ( 13 ) SECTION 81 enumerates the punishments which can be awarded, i. e. by way of Court Martial etc. , Section 81 (i) (g) says postponement of promotion could also be a punishment but this applies to officers below the rank of a Commodore, Section 81 (1) (l) A permits severe reprimand also to be imposed in Court Martial or other similar proceedings, as a punishment. Section 93, in fact, says that these punishments are to be imposed by a Naval Court. However, Section 94 (2) permits punishment of postponement to be imposed by the Government of India or Chief of Naval Staff for 6 months |1 year but these also are to be imposed on an officer below the rank of Commodore. ( 14 ) QUESTION is whether when the Naval Order 16181 which permits the Chief of Naval Staff to impose censure on officers of the rank of Commodore and above, and also postpones promotion of such officers by one year, the said Navy Order has statutory backing. On a consideration of the entire legal and factual posi- tion, we are of the view that the Chief of Naval Staff has such a power. On a consideration of the entire legal and factual posi- tion, we are of the view that the Chief of Naval Staff has such a power. ( 15 ) SECTION 81 (l) (n) of the Navy Act, 1957 permits other minor punishments which were being imposed by custom to be imposed. Section 82 deals with the procedure for imposing punishments and Sub-clause (20) permits all other punishments to be imposed as per previous custom, learned Additional Solicitor General has brought the original registers by which the Chief of Naval Staff had been imposing censures on officers of the rank of Commodore and above and postponing promotions by one year, prior to the Navy Act, 1957. We are satisfied there was such a custom and that Navy Order 16/81 merely reiterates the same and refers to the "custom" and enumerates the procedure for the Chief of Naval Staff to follow. Hence we hold that Navy Order 16/81 is valid and has statutory backing and is not ultra-vires of the Act or the Regulations. Point I is held against the petitioner. ( 16 ) POINT 2.-The contention here is that before awarding "censure" there was no charge framed and no opportunity given to the petitioner to explain. We have already stated that the Board of Inquiry was concerned with certain irregularities allegedly committed by certain individuals. Though the petitioner was not one of them, questions incidentally arose whether the irregulatities took place on account of any act or omission on; the part of the petitioner. In such situations there is a procedure prescribed which gives an option to other persons to "sit through" the inquiry and to crossexamine any witnesses who may speak against others not directly charged in the inquiry Regulation 205 says "regulation 205.-Procedure when. In such situations there is a procedure prescribed which gives an option to other persons to "sit through" the inquiry and to crossexamine any witnesses who may speak against others not directly charged in the inquiry Regulation 205 says "regulation 205.-Procedure when. character or conduct of a person in Government service is involved.- (1) Save in the case of a prisoner of war who is still absent, whenever any inquiry affects the character or reputation of a person in Government service or may result in the imputation of liability or responsibility for any loss of damage or is made for the contravention of any regulations or general or local orders, full opportunity shall be afforded to such person of being present throughout the inquiry and of making any statement and of giving any evidence he may wish to make or give and of crossexamining any witness whose evidence in his opinion affects him and prevailing any witness in his defence. (2) The President of the Board shall take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that such person so affected and not previously notified, receives notice of and fully understands his righs under this regulation. " ( 17 ) IN the present case, suveh opportunity was given as per orders dated 1-10-1991 etc. to the Directorate of Quality Assurance in the Defence Department where the petitioner was working and to the petitioner and in spite of the same, the petitioner did not opt for cross-examination of the witnesses etc. even though notice was specially given to the petitioner on15-10-1991 by the Commodore, who was President of the Board of Inquiry. In view of these facts, it is not correct to say that "censur" was awarded to the petitioner by the Chief of Naval Staff without affording reasonable opportunity. Point 2 is held against the petitioner. ( 18 ) POINT 3.-This point is very crucial and also requires perusal of the record of the Central Government and also of the Chief of Naval Staff. These files have been produced before us and we have perused them. ( 19 ) SOME of the facts in the files are in fact admitted in the counter filed on behalf of the responsodents dated 16-9-1993 affirmed by the Officer of the Ministry of Defence. These files have been produced before us and we have perused them. ( 19 ) SOME of the facts in the files are in fact admitted in the counter filed on behalf of the responsodents dated 16-9-1993 affirmed by the Officer of the Ministry of Defence. It is stated in the counter that unless the order (on the statutory petition) was conveyed to the petitioner it does not create any rights and before such commucatiun. it could be reconsidered. "as such, the Central Government was competent to reconsider and modify the stame. . . . ". "the Central Government in the present case reconsidered the matter for valid and good reasons which is a bona fide and genuine exercise of power in public interest. . . . . ". ( 20 ) IT is admitted in the. counter filed in C. W. P. 2857/93 that "the N. H. Q. had taken up the matter with the Central Government initially on 19-4-l993 and 18-5-1993. As the matter required reconsideration, the communication was withheld. The counter denies that the impugned order of the Central Government dated 37-8-1994 was "not one on the merits or that the same has been passed deli- A berately for collateral purpose by the respondents being under pressure because of the filing of the present writ petition". It was also stated later in the counter that the "respondents have taken a fair and independent decision". ( 21 ) IN the counter filed in C. W. 572194 in April, 1994, it is said that it is "within the power of Naval Hqrs/chief of Naval Staff to ask for a reconsideration of the order setting aside the order of censure issued against the petitioner for valid reasons which were recorded". ( 22 ) IN yet another counter dated 7-4-1994, it is stated by the Government that "it came to light that certain relevant records and documents had not been brought to his notice, that the competent authority decided to reconsider the whole issue. . " ( 23 ) IN the light of the above, we have perused and verified the record. . " ( 23 ) IN the light of the above, we have perused and verified the record. Initially it was decided on 18-3-1993 that the statutory representation of the petitioner was liable to be accepted and it was decided to dispose of the matter at the level of Additional Secretary and an order was proposed on 24-3-1993 for allowing the petition and setting aside the censure and was put up to the Minister on 26-3-93. After the latter s approval, it appears that the Naval Headquarters wanted the reasons which prevailed with the Government be communicated to the Naval Headquarters. On 28-4-1993, it was decided at a lower level to communicate the reasons and also, at the level of the Defence Secretary, it was so decided particularly as it would be a bad precedent and hence the N. H. Q. was asked on 1-51993 to communicate the Government s order to the petitioner. On 3-6-1993 and 10 -. 6-1993 it was decided at a particular level that no review of the order was necessary and that any reversal would put the Government in a highly embarassing situation in the Court as the first writ was already filed. ( 24 ) RECORD then shows that the Chief of Naval Staff personally met the senior officials and infromed that earlier the Minister had approved the censure. It was decided on 10-6-1993 to verify this fact. On 24-6-1993 an elaborate draft reply was prepared by the Ministry for the points raised by the N. H. O. and it was decided to inform the N. H. Q. that there were "no grounds" for the Government to review its orders and that the petitioner be promoted and High Court may be informed about this decision. ( 25 ) AT that stage, when the writ was coming up for orders, the Chief of Naval Staff sought an interview with the Minister and was granted an interview on 30-7-1993. Thereafter, the Minister took the opposite view on 14-8-1993 and decided to reject the statutory representation. The note dated 14-8-1993 of the Minister refers to the additional A information furnished by the Chief of Naval Staff personally to the Minister. Thereafter, the Minister took the opposite view on 14-8-1993 and decided to reject the statutory representation. The note dated 14-8-1993 of the Minister refers to the additional A information furnished by the Chief of Naval Staff personally to the Minister. It is recorded that the Chief of Naval Staff pointed out that the earlier decision of the Government had "serious implications" on the accountability of senior Naval Officers, that the relief granted was in excess of what had been sought for and that the decision of the Government was based only on the recommendation of a Committee headed by Additional Secretary and that though the said Committee included representatives of the Defence (Finance) and the Defence Production and Supplies, no representative of Naval Headquarters was included nor any official co-opted from Naval Headquarters. The Chief of Naval Staff had stated that staff of Quality Assurance Wing could not be proclaimed innocent. ( 26 ) FROM the above facts, it will be noticed that the Government of India was dealing admittedly with a "statutory" representation of the petitioner against the award of censure by the Chief of Naval Staff. Initially Government decided to accept the representation and set aside the censure and they directed the Chief of Naval Staff to communicate the order to the petitioner. The Chief of Naval Staff did not communicate the order but wanted to know the reasons which weighed with the Government in reversing his order. With some hesitation, reasons were given. Then the Chief of Naval Staff met senior officials in the Ministry and asked for a reconsideration of the decision on various points. A detailed note was prepared by the Government rejecting every point made out by the Chief of Naval Staff and he was once again directed to communncate the order of the Government setting aside the censure. It is at that stage that the Chief of Naval Staff took an interview with the Minister and personally explained the matter to the Minister concerned as to why the earlier decision of the Government was to be reversed. After the interview, the Government took a view different from the one taken by them in the long note earlier prepared rejecting the points raised by the Chief of Naval Staff. The fresh note of the Minister contains elaborate reasons for the reversal of the earlier decision and they arc reflected in the impugned order. After the interview, the Government took a view different from the one taken by them in the long note earlier prepared rejecting the points raised by the Chief of Naval Staff. The fresh note of the Minister contains elaborate reasons for the reversal of the earlier decision and they arc reflected in the impugned order. ( 27 ) IS there anything wrong in the Chief of Naval Staff meeting the Minister and making further submissions and the Government accepting the same at that stage? That is the crucial question. ( 28 ) IT is true that the earlier orders of the Government were not communicated to the petitioner and it was open to the Government to take a different view at a later point of time. The earlier order did not confer any rights on the petitioner. ( 29 ) BUT. in our considered view. if the Chief of Naval Staff had merely placed on paper certain fads for the consideration ofthe Government, to be taken into acount while dealing with the statutory A representation of the petitioner to the Government, here could perhaps be nothing wrong. But, when his writing on the paper to the Ministry did not fructify, he took an interview and discussed the matter personally with the Minister. We have no doubt that this was all done bona fide and there was nothing mala fide. But the procedure adopted here appears to us to be violative of one of the basic principles of natural justice attaching to quasi-judicial inquiries. ( 30 ) NOW the order of censure passed by the Chief of Naval Staff is admittedly a punishment under the Navy Order 16/81 read with the Regulations. It resulted in the petitioner s promotion as Rear Admiral being postponed by I year and had serious civil consequences. The petitioner s statutory representation to the Government is, in our opinion, the beginning of a quasi-judicial proceeding before the Government. We shall assume that it was open to the Chief of Naval Staff to seek reasons from the Government and keep the order of the Government with himself by not communicating the same even after being so directed. We shall also assume that he. could write to the Government bringing certain facts to their notice, even though he was not asked to do so. We shall also assume that he. could write to the Government bringing certain facts to their notice, even though he was not asked to do so. But, when he found that his points were all rejected, he sought a personal interview and discussed the matter with the Minister. It is here we find a clear violation of a basic principle of natural justice to the effect that "justice must not only be done must be seen to be done". In a quasi-judicial inquiry by a superior authority which is deciding about the correctness of the punishment awarded by the punishing authority, if the latter meets the higher authority to explain why its order should not be reversed or why an earlier note prepared by the superior authority shough be reversed, there is, in our opinion, a clear violation of basic principles of natural justice. In our view, whatever may be said about the points raised by the Chief of Naval Staff in writing to the superior authority, the personal interview should not have been sought for nor granted. We agree that this procedure was adopted bonafide by the Chief of Naval Staff and the Minister, but this is not correct according to law. The petitioner is left with the impression that the Government did not apply its mind independently to his petition. ( 31 ) WE are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order of the Government dated 17-8-1993 is liable to be quashed on this short ground. Point 3 is held in favour of the petitioner. ( 32 ) POINT 4 : Here we have to consider four situations. (1) If the order of the Government dated 17-8-1993 rejecting the statutory complaint of the petitioner is liable to be quashed as stated under Point 3, it goes without saying that the deletion of the petitinoer s name on 7-1-1994 from the select list prepared by the Selection Board has also to be set aside. The order dated 7-1-1994 retiring him forthwith also falls to the ground. A (2) Even if the "censure" is to stand because of the impugned order or if, after the disposal of this writ petition, the censure is confirmed once again by the Government, the order dated 7-1-1994 retiring him as Commodore on completion of 54 years is not sustainable. This is because of another reason. A (2) Even if the "censure" is to stand because of the impugned order or if, after the disposal of this writ petition, the censure is confirmed once again by the Government, the order dated 7-1-1994 retiring him as Commodore on completion of 54 years is not sustainable. This is because of another reason. Though a Commodore is B to retire on completion of 54 years, the relevant provision (See pages 187-188 of the paper book) dated 26-10-1983 called "working Rules for retirement of Naval Officers" say that a Captain (i. e. Commodore) is to retire on completion of 54 years but it will be "55 years in the case of those select-listed for promotion to Flag Rank". In the present case, the petitioner was included in the select list on 27-6-1991 for promotion as Rear Admiral. Though censure was issued on 12-5-1992 and received on 20-5-1992, and the Promotion Board No. I met again on 22-5-1992, and the matter was rightly resubmitted to it is per No. (Special) 2186, para 19 (d) (being a remark made after inclusion in the select list), the Board s proceedings dated 22-5-1992 to remove the petitioner s name from the select list was only a "recommendation" and it had to be accepted by the Government. But no such order was passed by Government accepting the Board s recommendation before the completion of 54th year i. e. before 30-4-1993. The position on 30-4-1993, when the petitioner completed 54 years was that his name continued to be in the select list and hence as per the "working Rules", the date of superannuation go automatically extended by I more year i. e. upto 30-4-1994 and there fore, apart from the impugned Government order dated 17-8-1993, inasmuch as Government did not remove his name from the select list before 30-4-1993, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service upto 30-4-1994. The order retiring him on 7-1-1994 communicated on 17-1-1994 was, therefore clearly illegal and without jurisdiction. In fact, the petitioner is entitled to his salary and emoluments as commodore upto 30-4-1994 and his pension etc. is to be reekoned on the basis that his retirement was on 30-4-1. 994 even he is not to get his promotion as Rear Admiral and even if the "censure" is to be confirmed. In fact, the petitioner is entitled to his salary and emoluments as commodore upto 30-4-1994 and his pension etc. is to be reekoned on the basis that his retirement was on 30-4-1. 994 even he is not to get his promotion as Rear Admiral and even if the "censure" is to be confirmed. (3) In any event, even if the censure remains, the position that as per Navy Order 16181, its effect on promotion is only for I year and the Chief of Naval Staff could not have postponed the promotion beyond I year. Para 9 (a) of the said Navy Order clear states: "an officer who has been awarded severe displeasure by the Chief of Naval Staff would not be granted acting promotion for one year from the date the letter is effective or any lesser period, as indicated by the Chief of Naval Staff". The petitioner having received the censure order dated 12-5-1992 on 20-5-1902, the ban of one year imposed by Navy Order 16181 gets lifted on 20-5-1993 automatically. ( 33 ) WE have already stated that the petitioner s service as Commodore got automatically extended to 55 years i. e. up to 30-4-1994 and hence, even if the censure is to be treated as affirmed, the effect of the censure stops on 20-5-1993 and the petitioner s cass should, therefore, have been considered by the Selection Board for his promotion as Rear Admiral before 30-4-1994 in respect of vacancies arising after 20-5-1993 and before 30-4-1994 and recommended to the Government. (4) In case, however, consequent to the order quashing the order of the Central Government dated 17-8-1993, (which we propose to pass), the Government accepts the petitioner s case and sets aside the censure, the deletion of the petitioner s name from the select list goes and the name comes back into the list and the petitioner will be entitled to his promotion 30 gram Admiral with effect from the date on which his immediate Paror in the original select that was promoted (viz.) 4-9-1992. ( 34 ) WE, therefore, hold in favour of the petitioner under Point 4 and to the extent indicated above. ( 34 ) WE, therefore, hold in favour of the petitioner under Point 4 and to the extent indicated above. In the result, we issue the following directions:- (1) In view of the decision on Points 1, 2 and 4 (and assuming petitioner fails on Point 3) and the censure stood against the petitioner, the respondents were wrong in retiring him on 7-1-1994. Therefore, the said order is quashed restoring the petitioner to service us Commodore at least for the period upto 30-4-1994 and the petitioner will be entiled to his salary and allowances for the period from actual date of retirement as per order dated 7-1-94 upto 30-4-1994 and also entiled to retiral benefits, as if in service as Commodore upto 30-4-1994. This is the position even if the censure order passed by the Chief of Naval Staff is to remain confirmed by the Government and even if he is not promoted. This is, subject to what is stated in para 2 below. (2) The post ponment of promotion of the petitioner, even it the censure stood, being only for one year upto 20-5-1993 and the petitioner s service having stood extended up to 30-4-1994 (on completion of 55 years) because of his name continuing in the select list. the respondents shall have to resubmit the case of the petitioner to the Selaction Board even on the basis that the removal of his name on 7-1-1994 from the list, pursuant to orders dated 17-8-1993 of the Central Government stood. It shall be for the Selection Board to consider his case for promotion as Rear Admiral, ignoring the censure, for the period 20-5-1993 to 30-4-1994 depending on the vacancies in that period. (3) In case the Selection Board re-admits him in the promotion list on the basis that the period of one year for non-promotion has expired, the respondents shall promote him as Rear Admiral in vacancies, if any, arising between 20-5-1993 and 30-4-1994. (4) The impugned order dated 17-8-1993 of the Government rejecting the petitioner s statutory complaint is set aside for the reasons given earlier and the Government is directed to consider tire representation afresh on the basis of the entire record of the case. (5) In the event of the Government again rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the directions in clauses (1), (2) and, (3) shall stand. (5) In the event of the Government again rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the directions in clauses (1), (2) and, (3) shall stand. (6) In the event of the Government setting aside the censure, the removal of the petitioner s name on 7-1-1994 will also stand set aside, and on the basis that the petitioner s name continued in the select list and there was no censure order, the petitioner will have to be promoted as Rear Admiral with reference to the date of promotion of his immediate junior on 4-9-1992 and petitioner will be entitled to all benefits of pay and allowances etc, in the rank of Rear Admiral w. e. f. 4-9-1992 and has to be treated him as retired on 30-4-1995 as Rear Admiral on completion of 56 years and be given all retiral benefits as if he has retired as Rear Admiral w. e. f. 30-4-1995. ( 35 ) THE writ petitions are allowed as stated above Writ Petition Allowed.