The only question involved in this writ petition is regarding the inter se seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent Nos 5 to 16. 2. The petitioner is presently a member of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service Grade II. In the inter se seniority list of the Circle Officers as it stood on 1.9.89 the name of the petitioner appeared in serial No.43 and the names of respondent Nos 5 to 16 were shown below him. By an order dated 16.1.92, 8 Circle Officers (respondent Nos 5 to 12) were appointed to APCS Grade II in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 on ad-hoc basis subject to regularisation of their appointment by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Services Commission (Annexure D). Subsequently respondent Nos 13 to 16 were also similarly given ad hbc promotion. On promotion of the above persons, the petitioner submitted his representation to the Govt and the Govt through the Secretary (Appointment) communicated the petitioner that his promotion on ad hoc basis to the post of APCS Grade II could not be considered in view of the pendency of departmental proceeding against him. At the same time by the said communication the Govt clarified the position as below : “... The ad hoc appointment shall not confer any right to claim for regular promotion or seniority to the cadre by his juniors. His case will be considered in his turn for regular promotions with due regard to his seniority for promotion to APCS II subject to availability of regular posts and fulfilling other conditions as and when the DPC is convened.” The Govt. subsequently sent proposal for promotion of 8 APCS (Junior) to APCS Grade II for regularisation and for filling up of 10 clear vacancies in the Grade of APCS II by communication dated 26.5.93. By the above communication the Govt also sought for settlement of the order of departmental case against the appellant. In the said communication the Govt clarified the position of the petitioner and stated that in respect of the petitioner the Govt could not consider his case along with 8 officers who were junior to him during the first quarter of 1992 as because a departmental case was pending against him. The departmental case since settled the Govt wanted to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date on which his immediate junior Shri Bidya Gadi promoted to APCS Grade II. 3. The departmental case since settled the Govt wanted to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the date on which his immediate junior Shri Bidya Gadi promoted to APCS Grade II. 3. By communication dated 30.6.93 the eight ad-hoc appointees, namely respondent Nos 5 to 12 were regularised in APCS Grade II with effect from the respective date of appointment to APCS Grade II in column 3 of the table in order of their inter-se seniority. The departmental proceeding was finally concluded on 12.5.94. On appeal the appellate authority by its order dated 12.5.94 directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs.309.16 which he drew as TA. The appellate authority finally passed the following direction : “1. The entire amount of Rs.309,16 (Rupees three hundred nine and paise sixteen) only drawn by Shri Nani Mali as TA was not admissible to him, should be recovered from him, if not already done. 2. He is 'warned' to be very careful in future. Orders accordingly. The Disciplinary Authority further recommends that Shri Mali be allowed to cross EB etc from the date of this order, if he is otherwise eligible for that benefit.” From the order it thus transpires that the TA which the petitioner drew was not admissible and accordingly directed to repay the same and closed the matter with an warning to be careful in future. The disciplinary authority further recommended that the petitioner be allowed to cross EB etc. from the date of the order. After conclusion of the departmental proceeding the petitioner was appointed and promoted to APCS Grade II in the scale of Rs.2200-4000 PM in terms of Rule 13 of the APCS Rules, 1974 from the date of taking over the charge of posting. 4. After joining in the post the petitioner made a representation before the authority for conferring the service benefit and promotion with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted. On receipt of the representation of the petitioner the State Govt took up the matter and subsequently referred to APPSC, but the PSC had expressed inability to review the position. 5. According to the State Govt the petitioner would have been promoted but because of pendency of the departmental proceeding against him, the same could not be done. Hence this writ petition. 6. Mr. 5. According to the State Govt the petitioner would have been promoted but because of pendency of the departmental proceeding against him, the same could not be done. Hence this writ petition. 6. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion when his juniors were also considered for promotion. In fact during the pendency of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner the respondents should have considered the loss of promotion of petitioner and have kept the matter in sealed cover instead of totally ignoring his case, submitted the learned counsel. The departmental proceeding so far initiated against the petitioner was finally closed which exonerated the petitioner save and except the warning, by itself cannot be treated as a punishment, submitted Mr. Baruah, the learned counsel. 7. Mr. DS Bhattacharyya, the learned Govt Advocate submitted that the case of the petitioner was duly considered the moment when the departmental proceeding was closed. 8. The petitioner was finally absolved from the proceeding by an order of the appellate authority dated 12.5.94 and accordingly his case was considered for promotion and the authority passed the order on 30.5.94. As regards the contention of giving retrospective promotion to the petitioner on and from the date when his juniors were promoted, in fact the Govt wrote to the Public Service Commission narrating all the facts, but the Public Service Commission turned down the case and the respondent Nos 1 to 3 could not give the petitioner the retrospective benefit. 9. From the facts narrated above it thus transpires that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion in view of the departmental proceeding pending against him. When the departmental proceeding came to an end only then his case was considered. The departmental proceeding finally exonerated the petitioner and accordingly the authority found him eligible for being promoted. When the departmental proceeding finally concluded exonerating the petitioners from guilty, fairness demanded for restitution of the seniority of the petitioner all through out during his service career till he was superseded by his juniors on the ground of departmental proceeding. AH through out the petitioner was senior to the respondents. When the departmental proceeding ultimately exonerated the petitioner from the guilt, the petitioner is to get back the seniority to the post. AH through out the petitioner was senior to the respondents. When the departmental proceeding ultimately exonerated the petitioner from the guilt, the petitioner is to get back the seniority to the post. In fact the respondents maintained the seniority of the respondent Nos 5 to 12 while regularising their services by an order dated 30.6.93. The seniority which the petitioner was holding is to be maintained. 10. For the foregoing reasons the respondents are directed to restore the seniority of the petitioner and give him promotion from the date on which the respon­dent No.5 was promoted and allow the petitioner's seniority above the respondent No.5. The petitioner shall not, however, be entitled for the salary for the above period but save and except the arrear of salary of the higher post, the petitioner shall be entitled for all other services benefit for the date of his deemed promotion. 11. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.