ORDER : The petitioner currently working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police seeks a direction for his promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police from the date his juniors were given the promotion. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 it is stated that the petitioner figured at sl. no. 1044(k) of the State Gradation List of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. It is further stated that the petitioner's case for promotion was considered along with other officers both senior and junior to him by the Central Selection Board held in 1994. The petitioner was not found fit for promotion due to unsatisfactory service record. In the same Board officers junior to him were found fit for promotion and were accordingly granted promotion in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. It further comes to light from the counter affidavit and then a supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that the main reason for finding the petitioner's service record as unsatisfactory and holding him unfit for promotion was a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in the year 1988. 3. This takes us to examine the disciplinary proceeding no. 38/88 and the manner in which it was concluded. It appears that the petitioner, in an intoxicated state, misbehaved with a girl and the girl could be rescued only by the intervention of another police constable. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on this charge and on the basis of the findings of the departmental enquiry the Superintendent of Police, Purnea being the disciplinary authority gave him the punishment of withholding two annual increments for one year which was equivalent to two black marks. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the ORDER :of punishment. In appeal the D.I.G., Purnea enhanced the punishment and ORDER :ed his dismissal from service. The petitioner then filed a memorial before the Zonal I.G., Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. The Zonal I.G., by his ORDER :dated 25.3.1991 set aside the ORDER :of dismissal passed by the appellate authority and restored the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. 5. In appeal the D.I.G., Purnea enhanced the punishment and ORDER :ed his dismissal from service. The petitioner then filed a memorial before the Zonal I.G., Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. The Zonal I.G., by his ORDER :dated 25.3.1991 set aside the ORDER :of dismissal passed by the appellate authority and restored the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. 5. One may legitimately feel that having regard to the nature of the charge, the punishment of two black marks was wholly inadequate and perhaps the ORDER :passed by the Zonal I.G. was unduly lenient but that would not affect the finality of the ORDER :passed in the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. 6. It appears that while considering the petitioner's case for promotion in the year 1994 the Central Selection Board was swayed more by the gravity of the charge rather than the legal effect of the final ORDER :passed by the Zonal I.G.in the disciplinary proceeding. 7. In course of hearing of this case on an earlier occasion I had directed for production of the minutes of the Selection Board, pursuant to which the JC to S.C.VI has today produced before me those minutes. The name of the petitioner figures at sl.no.138 and against his name it is merely recorded 'unsatisfactory, moral turpitude'. 8. As noted above the opinion of the Board that the petitioner was guilty of a misconduct involving moral turpitude is based on the nature of the charge rather than the final ORDER :passed by the Zonal I.G. in the disciplinary proceeding. Once an ORDER :of punishment is passed finally, the delinquent would only suffer the legal consequences arising from that ORDER :and it would not be permissible to go back to the charges to deny him promotional benefits. Otherwise it would amount to punishing' a delinquent employee twice over for the same charge(s). 9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Central Selection Board committed an error in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion and denying him promotion on the basis of the disciplinary proceeding no. 38/88. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion afresh in the light of the observation made in this ORDER :and in accordance with law. 38/88. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion afresh in the light of the observation made in this ORDER :and in accordance with law. A final decision concerning the petitioner's promotion should be taken within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this ORDER :.