K. Ramamoorthy, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was working Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the first respondent administration. On 23. 8. 1976 his juniors were promoted as Assistant Engineer and his case was not considered for the post of Assistant Engineer. A seniority list was prepared. He instituted a suit claiming the relief that his case had not been considered as on 23. 8. 1976 and that his position in the seniority list be recognised and he should be fixed accordingly. On 4. 2. 1986 the suit was decreed. In November,1987, the DPC washeld for considering those persons in the seniority list for the post of Executive Engineer but the case of the petitioner was not considered On 8. 5. 1990 the first respondent realising the mistake committed and on the basis of the decree dated 4. 2. 1986, issued the revised seniority list putting the petitioner in the proper rank as Assistant Enbgineer. The proceedings dated 8. 5. 1990 reads as under: DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING (MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI No. F/ao (P. VI)90-91/23 Date 8. 5. 1990 ADDENDA ADDENDA TO OFFICE ORDER No. E/ao (P. III) SENIORITY/206 DATED 2. 2. 1981 REGARDING SENIORITY LIST OF Assistant ENGINEERS. The final Seniority List of the category of Officers working as Assistant Engineers (Elect. /mech.) was circulated vide Office Order No. E/ac (P. III)/ 81-82/13 dated 15. 4. 81. The last name in that final Seniority-list at S. No. 25 was that of Shri R. M. Dham. As notified by AAO/ad (G) vide their Office Orders No. F. 7 (5) /aandg/tech. / 84/36 dated 25. 5. 84, No. F. 7 (5)/aandg/tech/84/132 dated 24. 12. 86 and No. F. 20/aandg/tech/108 dated 3. 1. 90, the names of the Officials as mentioned in the enlcosed Annexure are proposed to be placed below the name of Shri R. N. Dham, whose name appears at Sr. No. 25 of the Seniority-list issued vide Office Order dated 2. 2. 1981 and above the name of Shri O. D. Sharma at SI. No. 26 of the Seniority-list issued vide Office Order No. E/ao (P. III)/ 82-83/seniority/277 dated 13. 1. 83. Objections, if any, to the proposed addenda may be submitted by the Officers concerned within one month of the issue of this office order. In case, no objection/representations are received within the stipulated period, the addenda will be treated as final and notified accordingly. 1. 83. Objections, if any, to the proposed addenda may be submitted by the Officers concerned within one month of the issue of this office order. In case, no objection/representations are received within the stipulated period, the addenda will be treated as final and notified accordingly. This issues with the approval of A. G. M (A ). sd/- 7. 5. 90 ( 2 ) THE petitioner was shown at Serial No. 25-D. In August, 1990 a Review DPC was convened. The Minutes of the Meeting of the DPC reads as under: FILE No. F. 2 (12)/aandg/tech. Confidential DELHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY UNDERTAKING Minutes of the Meeting of the Review D. P. C. held in the Chamber of General Manager on 9. 8. 1990. PRESENT: 1. Dr. R. Clemant llango Chairman General Manager; 2. Sh. Arun K. Mathur, Member Addl. General Manager (Admn.) 3. Sh. B. B. Das, Member Addl. General Manager (Tech.) AGENDA: Promotion of Officers to the grade of X. E. N (Elect. /mech.) on ad-hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4875. The D. P C: were informed that consequent upon giving national promotion to the following officers in the grade of A. E (Elect. /mech.) w. e. f 23. 8. 1976 and consequent reformation-of their seniority in the final seniority-list of A. E. (Elect. / Mech.) circulated vide Office Order dated 2. 2. 1981 at S. No. 25-D to 25-1 (incorporatede vide Office Orderno. E/ao:pvi)/90-91/69 dated 18. 7. 1990) their cases are required to be considered for promotion as X. E. N. (Elect. /mech.) on ad- hoc basis nationally w. e. f. the date, their juniors had been promoted aganst 90% posts reserved for Degree holders in accordance with the R and P Regulations: 1. Sh. H. C. Khaneja. 2. Sh. M. L. Chadha. 3. Sh. Vishwa Mittar. 4. Sh. Bharat Bhushan. 5. Sh. D. K. Khattar. 6. Sh. S. K. Batra. The D. P. C. were further informed that consequent upon these re-fixation of seniority in the grade of A. E. (Elect. /mech.), their names are required to be sent tou. P. S. C. for holding areview D. P. C. for their regularisation in the grade of A. X. E. N. (Elect. /mech.) with retrospective effect. But as this process is likely to take sometime, these Officers arc to be considered for promotion to the grade of X. E. N (Elect. /mech.), their names are required to be sent tou. P. S. C. for holding areview D. P. C. for their regularisation in the grade of A. X. E. N. (Elect. /mech.) with retrospective effect. But as this process is likely to take sometime, these Officers arc to be considered for promotion to the grade of X. E. N (Elect. /mech.) on ad-hoc basis considering "their seniority in the grade of A. E. (Elect. /mech.) provisionally, The D. P. C. were further informed that the names of the six officers came 603 above the name of Sh. V. K. Pandey in the seniority list of A. E. (Elect. /mech.) who had been promoted asx. E. N. (Elect. /mech.) on ad hoc basis w. e. t. 1. 12. 1987 as a result of D. P. C. held on 29. 9. 87. So, the present D. P. C. is to consider the names of the above mentioned six officers by reviewing the earlier D. P. C. held on 29. 9. 87. Accordingly, the D. P. C. considered the C. Rs. and other service-record of the above six officers and assessed them as indicated against each: 1. Sh. H. C. Khaneja Fit. 2. Sh. M. L. Chadha as in sealed cover. 3. Sh. Vishwa Mittar Fit. 4. Sh. Bharat Bhushan Fit. 5. Sh. D. K. Khattar Fit. 6. Sh. S. K. Batra Fit. Accordingly on the basis of the above assessment, the D. P. C. recommend the names of the following Officers for promotion to the grade of X. E. N. (Elect. /mech.) on ad hoc basis nationally w. e. f 1. 12. 1987 i. e. the date, when their juniors Sh. V. K. Mutrpy was promoted and for placement of their names at S. No. 3-A to 3-E. I. E. , below the name of Shri S. K. Sharma and above the name of Sh. V. K. Materey -n the panel recommended by the D. P. C. on 29. 9. 1987. 1. Sh. H. C. Khaneja. 2. Sh. Vishwa Mittar. 3. Shr. Bharat Dhushan. 4. Sh. b. ^. Khattar. 5. Sh. S. K. Baltca^ The D. P. C. were informed that no vigilence/disciplinary case is pending gainst any of the ^officers mentioned above, recommended for promotion to the post of X. E. N. (Elect. /me^on ad toe basis. ITEM No. 356: Decision No. 816/desc dated 15. 1. 91. Vishwa Mittar. 3. Shr. Bharat Dhushan. 4. Sh. b. ^. Khattar. 5. Sh. S. K. Baltca^ The D. P. C. were informed that no vigilence/disciplinary case is pending gainst any of the ^officers mentioned above, recommended for promotion to the post of X. E. N. (Elect. /me^on ad toe basis. ITEM No. 356: Decision No. 816/desc dated 15. 1. 91. As proposed by the GM (E) in his letter No. F2 (i2)Aandg/tech/mtg-902 dated 21. 12. 1990, approval for the panel of 5 officers, namely, Sarvshri H. C. Khaneja, Vishwa Mittar, Bharatbhushan,d. K. Khattar and S. K. Batraforpromotionasand when vacancy arises, to the grade ofxen (E/m) on ad hoc basis for a period of one year or till such time, the posts are filled up on regular basis, whichever is earlier, is accorded. ( 3 ) ON the premise that there was a charge-sheet issued on 6. 3. 1989, the DPC adopted the sealed cover procedure though the DPC held in August, 1990 was only a review DPC of the earlier DPC held in November, 1987 and it was not a DPC convened for the purpose of considering the candidates afresh. It is, as if for all practical purposes the DPC was being held as in November, 1987. ( 4 ) THE petitioner claims that having regard to the service record he was entitled to be promoted as Executive Engineer and the DPC which met on 9. 8. 90 should not have adopted the sealed cover procedure. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gupta submits that when a Review DPC was held in August, 1990, that Committee was not justified is being recourse to the sealed cover procedure as there was no charge-sheet pending against the petitioner as on September, 1987 or November, 1987 and the charge could be taken into account only at the time of consideration for promotion of the officers subsequent to the date of issue of the charge. According to Mr. Gupta, learnedCounsel for the petitioner the clock cannot be put back as done by the DPC which was holding review meeting in August, 1990. The respondents have not taken any specific stand in the counter affidavit that if in September or November, 1987 the case of the petitioner has been considered having regard to the service record he would not have been promoted as Executive Engineer. The respondents have not taken any specific stand in the counter affidavit that if in September or November, 1987 the case of the petitioner has been considered having regard to the service record he would not have been promoted as Executive Engineer. In the absence of any material against the petitioner as on 1987 he should have been promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. The learned Counsel Mr. Gupta relied upon the judgment of this, court reported in Anand Kumar v. Union of India and Anr. , 1973 (1) SLR 343 wherein this Court was invited to decide a similar, question under exactly similar circumstances only difference being there was earlier charge-sheet which was cancelled later and here the position is that there was no charge against the delinquent official on the relevant date of consideration for promotion. The learned Counsel has referred to the circumstances in the following terms: The only justification for its action pleaded by the respondents is that as the petitioner was involved in a disciplinary proceedings he could not have been so promoted. In so far as the action of the respondents refusing to promote him. in pursuance of the order dated 30. 1. 1967 was concerned at that time there may not be much difficulty in accepting the argument of the Counsel for the respondents. Theposition,however,changed materially when the order of 8. 6. 65 was cancelled by the respondents on 2. 3. 68. Cancellation of the change-sheet dated 8. 6. 65 necessarily means that the petitioner was not involved in any disciplinary proceedings prior to 3. 8. 67 when a new charge-sheet was given to him. No doubt at the time when originally the promotions were made on 30. 1. 1967 the petitioners could not be given promotion and his name had to be kept in abeyance because there were proceedings pending against him in pursuance of the charge-sheet of 8. 6. 1865. The same, however, cannot be said when that order was withdrawn on 2. 3. 1968. In order, therefore to justify the refusal to any decision to give effect to the promotion order of 30. 1. 1967, it has to be shown that the petitioner was involved in any disciplinary proceedings at that particular time. The whole purpose of considering the cases of those persons who are involved indisciplinary proceedings is to see that their future prospects are not afected adversely. 1. 1967, it has to be shown that the petitioner was involved in any disciplinary proceedings at that particular time. The whole purpose of considering the cases of those persons who are involved indisciplinary proceedings is to see that their future prospects are not afected adversely. As a matter of fact this was itself the recommendation of the Ministry of Home Affairs when they issued instructions in Annexure PA providing that even those persons who are under suspension or were being proceeded against would be considered so that if subsequently they are exonerated their prospects of promotion may not be affected. The procedure laid down in annexure RA also provides that if a finding indicates that the individual was considered fit for promotion or confirmation and he is completely exonerated and there has been no deterioration in his subsequent recorded performance, the recommendation of the DFC will be implemented. Now assume that in the present case there had been no subsequent charge-sheet of 3. 8. 1967 and 6. 3. 1968 and all that had happened was that the originalcharge-sheetof8. 6. 1965 had been can celled by the order of 2. 3. 1968. Could in these circumstances it be said that because disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner in 1966-67 when promotions were ordered the same should not be carried outsubsequently when the proceedings against him were dropped. It seems to me that such an argument would strike at the very root of the procedure laid down by the instructions itself and would work obviously manifest injustice to the employees. In my view the only justification for not promoting a person even though selected by the D. P. C. can be if ultimately he is not completely exonerated. But here because of the cancellation of charge-sheet of 8. 6. 1965, the petitioner was not involved in any disciplinary proceedings in 1966-67 when promotion had to be given effect to, and there would be thus no justification not to consider his case on the basis of selection by the D. P. C. and in terms of the procedure laid down in Annexure RA of 7. 6. 1965. Had the petitioner. not been selected in 1966 by the D. P. C. and had his case been considered in 1968- 69 when he had been found guilty in pursuance of the charge-sheet on 3. 8. 1967 and 6. 3. 6. 1965. Had the petitioner. not been selected in 1966 by the D. P. C. and had his case been considered in 1968- 69 when he had been found guilty in pursuance of the charge-sheet on 3. 8. 1967 and 6. 3. 1968 the position might have been different. In that case there would be disciplinary proceedings pending against him resulting in finding him guilty. But in the present case, the petitioner is only seeking to establish that his right which had vested in him in 1966, should be given effect to because there was in fact no disciplinary proceedings pending against him at that point of time and he was not thus guilty in pursuance of this. If the petitioner was wrongly charge-sheeted on 8. 6. 1965 (asisclearfrom. itscancellationon2. 3. 1968),hehasarightto urge that on termination of those proceedings his case should be considered on the footing that there were no disciplinary proceedings in which he was involved on 30. 1. 1967. As a matter of fact even the respondents themselves have further liberalised the procedure in case of those persons who are even found guilty by the procedure in case of those persons should be reviewed by a special D. P. C and decision taken whether or not to promote the individual in spite of the disciplinary proceedings against him and the punishment awarded to him. It has also been provided that if the decision is in favour of the person promotion will be effected and seniority restored according to the-panel position assigned to him by the D. P. C. which originally considered him. (This procedure is laid down in a circular by the Engineer-in-Chief No. 43319/eir dated 31. 12. 1970 and is to be found in the file PF/file31291/eid (CP) Main Heading Promotioncase-MES304316 Shri Anand Kumar, produced in the Court by the respondents ). I am pointing this out because in the return it has been sought to be explained that the panel is normally to be operated for one year with effect from the date of the D. P. C. meeting subject to a maximum of one andhalf year, and, therefore, the panel which was formed in October, 1967 lapsed in March, 1969 and the proceedings against the petitioner only concluded subsequently on 7th August, 1969. The petitioner is not making a grievance is that having been selected by the D. P. C in 1966 and the promotion having been ordered in January, 1967, the same could not be denied to him subsequently because the very basis on which it was withheld namely the charge sheet of 8. 6. 1965 had been cancelled on 2. 3. 1968, and was thus non-existant at the relevant time. In my opinion the respondents have denied promotion to the petitioner on the mistaken assumption that subsequent charge-sheets of 3. 8. 1967 and 6. 3. 1968 were relevant for its action in November, 1966 or January, 1967. This obviously is fallacious and not premissible according to Rules and to the procedure laid down. At the relevant time, it has to be taken that there were no disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Once, therefore the petitioner had been selected and anorder of promotion had been madeon30. 1. 1967 the same should have been giveneffecttosubsequently,whencharge-sheetof8. 6. 1965,refusal of the respondent to give him due promotion on the basis of selection by D. P. C. in 1966 and refusal to give effect to his promotion order of 30. 1. 1967 were unauthorised and illegal. ( 6 ) IT is stated by Mr. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired from service on 31. II. 1993 and chances of being considered to next higher post would not arise. Therefore, we are concerned only with the promotion of the petitoner to the post of Executive Engineer as on 1987. ( 7 ) MR. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that pursuant to the charge an enquiry was held and punishment was imposed on the petitioner imposing withholding of two increments and that period also had expired. ( 8 ) THE position in law is very clear that when as on November, 1987 there was no charge against the petitioner he ought to have been considered for promotion. The respondents having failed to consider his case as his position in the seniority list was wrongly fixed, therefore, the legal effect is that his seniority was fixed in accordance with law as on 23. 8. 1976. For the purpose of this case it has notionally taken into account that his seniority was fixed as per the case of the petitioner and his case was considered in November. 8. 1976. For the purpose of this case it has notionally taken into account that his seniority was fixed as per the case of the petitioner and his case was considered in November. 1987 or September, 1987 and in November, 1987 the DPC held, therefore, could not deny to the petition the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer as on November, 1987. ( 9 ) THE petitioner is now claiming the promotion from December, 1987 because the DPC was held in November, 1987. The respondent shall open the sealed cover as per the DPC held in August, 1990 and issue necessary orders for the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer from 1. 12. 1987 on the date on which his junior was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and the respondents shall give to the petitioner all the consequential benefits. The respondents shall pass necessary orders on or before 31. 7. 1998. THE writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.