JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---The petitioner faced departmental proceedings and was meted out punishment under Rule 102 of the Service Rules of the respondent-Agricultural Market Produce Committee. 2.Later on when time came for promotion, he did not get it though, according to the petitioner, he was sufficiently senior for at least being considered. 3.When made a representation against this incident, the petitioner was told that Regulation 46, governing the promotion provides that if he has been punished in a department proceeding, for the purposes of promotion, he loses seniority and will have to be placed at the bottom of seniority list. This rule has been quoted on page 7 of the petition. The relevant portion is as under: "Employee who is punished under any of the punishment specified in Rule 102 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, shall be put at the bottom of the seniority list, even if he is seniormost." 4.The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is to the effect that when punishment under Rule 102 does not refer to loss of seniority as a consequence of punishment having been inflicted thereunder, the event of imposition of penalty under Rule 102 if made use of in this manner, it would amount to punishing the petitioner once again for the same offence or delinquent's act in respect of which a punishment order was passed under Rule 102. 5.At first sight this might appear to be the position. However, if the rules quoted at pages 7 and 8 of the petition are read in its entirety, they deem to be the provision prescribing rule for promotion where seniority is no doubt one of the criteria. However, by the quoted portion of the said rule, it is indicated that the person at the time of consideration could not have as a part of his service record punishment recorded against him. 6.In other words, one of the requirements of the promotion is that on the date of promotion the petitioner or a candidate being considered for promotional post, till that date his service record shall be totally clear, unblemished and spotless. 6.In other words, one of the requirements of the promotion is that on the date of promotion the petitioner or a candidate being considered for promotional post, till that date his service record shall be totally clear, unblemished and spotless. If this requirement is not fulfilled so far as the consideration for promotion is concerned, no doubt he may be considered, but losing seniority when he goes to the bottom for all practical purposes, he may not be promoted at the time when occasion arises, for the petitioner being considered, after the event of punishment. 7.The Agricultural Produce Market Committee has clearly taken a stand as submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the A.P.M.C. that the loss of seniority is not also taken outcome. On and after he loses the seniority for the purposes of promotion as stated above, he again suffers and claim the ladder and gradually make it up even seniority loses, other time he too will be considered along with others before the Committee for the purpose. 8.In the instant case, it may be noted that whether illustration of the portion of the said rule on the line submitted by the A.P.M.C. as and when occasion arises, petitioner was considered and during the pendency of petition he in fact has been promoted. 9.When the rule is not only understood in the aforesaid manner, but actually operated and acted in that manner, in our opinion, the grievance of double jeopardy has to be read on the basis. On the contrary, the said Regulation 46 provides for additional requirement of the career being spotless and unblemished all throughout. 10.In this background, the decision cited at the bar on behalf of the petitioner of (Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board)1, 1988 (Supp.) S.C.C. 669, will have of no help. In that case, without any rule or provision of the nature indicated in the instant case, after punishment was inflicted, by the departmental authorities, would the petitioner come down in the seniority list and this was treated as a double punishment. 11.For the above said reasons, in our opinion, the petition cannot be sustained; Dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed. -----