ORDER : 1. Leave granted. Heard the parties. 2. By order dated 24.1.2005, the appellant was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I by the respondents. The said promotion was cancelled by office order dated 23.3.2005 and he was continued in the pre-promotional post of Technical Assistant Grade-II. No reasons were assigned in the order dated 23.3.2005 for cancelling the promotion. Nor was the appellant heard before cancellation of the promotion. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court in CWP No. 5026/2005 for quashing the cancellation dated 23.3.2005. The High Court, by order dated 16.2.2006, allowed the writ petition and quashed the cancellation order dated 23.3.2005, as being opposed to principles of natural justice. Liberty was reserved to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, by observing the rules of natural justice, if so advised. 3. Thereafter, the respondents reconsidered the matter and passed an order dated 20.4.2006. The said order stated that when the case of the appellant was considered for promotion on 8.11.2004, the Zonal Promotion Committee had by inadvertence, without noticing the pendency of a minor penalty proceeding (initiated by issue of a charge-sheet dated 9.6.2004), had recommended his promotion; that in pursuance of it, the order of promotion was issued on 31.1.2005; that the said minor penalty proceeding was decided on 3.1.2005 holding him guilty and imposing a penalty of token recovery of Rs. 5,000/- that as the minor penalty proceedings was pending when his case was considered for promotion, he could not have been recommended for promotion and that therefore, his order of promotion was rightly cancelled. The said order directed that, his case shall be placed before the next Zonal Promotion Committee. 4. The appellant challenged the said order dated 20.4.2006 in another writ petition (CWP No. 7637/2006). During the pendency of the said writ petition, the first respondent passed another order dated 11.3.2008 stating that the case of the appellant for consideration for promotion to the post of Technical Assistant Grade-I was placed before the Zonal Promotion committee during 2005, 2006 and 2007 and the recommendations of Zonal Promotion committee were kept in a sealed cover due to his involvement in vigilance cases as reported by the zonal office. In view of the said order dated 11.3.2008, the High Court dismissed his writ petition (CWP No. 7637/2006) by order dated 25.3.2008. In view of the said order dated 11.3.2008, the High Court dismissed his writ petition (CWP No. 7637/2006) by order dated 25.3.2008. It held that the stand of the respondents taken in the order dated 11.3.2008 in regard to sealed cover procedure being followed in the case of appellant was not unfair or unjust. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. 5. The appellant does not dispute the fact that when his case was initially considered for promotion in December, 2004, a minor penalty proceeding was pending. Not does he dispute the fact that in the said proceedings, an order was made on 3.1.2005 imposing a penalty, for recovery of Rs. 5,000/-. But the appellant relies on two circulars of the first respondent dated 13.12.2001 and 19.12.2001. The first circular dated 13.12.2001, reads thus: “We have made a reference to Headquarters about some clarifications relating to imposition of minor penalty/recovery from the individuals and not releasing promotions of various officers/officials involved in such cases. Clarification has been received which stipulates that in the cases where such recoveries have been ordered under minor penalty these recoveries can continue even in promoted capacity, therefore, there is no point to withhold such promotions. Since necessary clarification has already been received, all such cases which be reviewed and before 24.12.2001, all such promotions should be released.” 6. This was followed by another circular dated 19.12.2001 issuing a consequential direction that promotion orders may be served in cases where orders have been released by Zonal Office, but withheld by regional offices due to currency of recovery. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the said circulars, mere pendency of minor penalty proceedings, or imposition of orders of minor penalty for recovery in such proceedings should not result in withholding the promotion. 7. Seen in the background of the two circulars dated 13.12.2001 and 19.12.2001, it is evident that the promotion of petitioner by order dated 24.1.2005 was not the result of any oversight. It should be noticed that as on 24.1.2005, the minor penalty proceeding had come to an end by levying penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Even as on 8.11.2004 what was pending was only a minor penalty proceeding. Therefore, having regard to the circulars dated 13.12.2001 and 19.12.2001, neither the pendency of minor penalty proceedings nor the imposition of minor penalty by way of recovery of Rs. 5,000/-. Even as on 8.11.2004 what was pending was only a minor penalty proceeding. Therefore, having regard to the circulars dated 13.12.2001 and 19.12.2001, neither the pendency of minor penalty proceedings nor the imposition of minor penalty by way of recovery of Rs. 5000/- would come in the way of the employees being considered for promotion or being promoted. It therefore, follows that there was no justification for cancelling the said promotion dated 24.1.2005. If the appellant was thus entitled to promotion and the cancellation of the promotion was not warranted, the case of the appellant being considered again for the very same promotion and adoption of sealed cover procedure in view of the pendency of subsequent disciplinary proceedings will not arise. Delhi Jai Board vs. Mahinder Singh, 2000 (7) SCC 210 . 8. We hold that cancellation of the promotion of the appellant on 24.1.2005 was not warranted and the reasons given for cancellation thereof cannot be supported. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and uphold the promotion of appellant as per order dated 24.1.2005, given effect by order dated 31.1.2005. As a consequence, the subsequent order of cancellation dated 20.4.2006 and the consequential order dated 11.3.2008 are quashed. Appeal allowed.