JUDGMENT P.K. Musaharay, J. 1. Both the above writ petitions involve similar facts, grievances and point of law to be decided and as such both the writ petitions are heard together and proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order. In the first writ petition Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering joined as Medical Officer (Allopathy) in the Arunachal Pradesh Health Service on 11.2.1991. She was, vide order dated 24.12.2003, given the first time bound promotion to Senior Medical Officer (Allopathy) with retrospective effect from 12.2.1999 on completion of 8 years of regular service in the Grade of Medical Officer. She claims that she was entitled to 2nd time bound promotion to the post of Senior Medical Officer (Selection Grade) (Allopathy) with effect from 13.2.2004 when she completed 5 years of regular service in the Grade of Senior Medical Officer but the DPC held on 18.6.2007 did not consider her case for second time bound promotion due to non-availability of vigilance clearance. Another DPC was held on 29.8.2008 in which sealed cover procedure was applied due to pendency of vigilance case. In the second writ petition Dr. Samarendra Nath Kundu joined as Medical Officer (Homeopathy) in the Arunachal Pradesh Health Service on 29.11.1984. He was given the first time bound promotion to Senior Medical Officer (Homeopathy) vide notification dated 12.6.2003 with retrospective effect from 30.11.1992 on completion of 8 years of regular service in the Grade of Medical Officer. He also claims that he was entitled to second time bound promotion to Senior Medical Officer (Selection Grade) (Homeopathy) w.e.f. 30.11.1997 having completed 5 years of regular service in the Grade of Senior Medical Officer but the DPC held on 18.6.2007 did not consider his case for second time bound promotion due to non-availability of vigilance clearance. In his case also sealed cover procedure was applied when another DPC was held on 29.8.2008 due to pendency of vigilance case against him. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by application of sealed cover procedure as it has resulted into denial of second time bound promotion to them. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs:- i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to grant time bound promotion w.e.f. 13.2.2004 in respect of petitioner Dr. (Mrs. Oishy Ering) and 30.11.1997 in respect of Dr. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs:- i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to grant time bound promotion w.e.f. 13.2.2004 in respect of petitioner Dr. (Mrs. Oishy Ering) and 30.11.1997 in respect of Dr. Samarendra Nath Kundu i.e. the date from which their immediate juniors in the cadre of Senior Medical Officer in their respective branch of the department were given such promotion maintaining the seniority over their juniors in terms of next below rule. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to open the sealed cover applied by the DPC dated 29.8.2008 in the matter of second time bound promotion of the petitioners and implement the decision of the DPC in conformity with the guidelines of the Government of India contained in the Office Memorandum No. 22011/4/91 - Estt. (A) dated 14.9.1992. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to act in conformity with the aforesaid O.M. dated 14.9.1992 and to carry out the periodical review of the petitioners' case to consider the desirability of giving them ad hoc promotion. 2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Ete, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh for the State Respondents. 3. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, I find that there is no dispute on the date of entry of the petitioners in their respective services and granting of 1st time bound promotion to the post of Senior Medical Officer. There is also no dispute that Arunachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as APHS Rules, 2000) came into effect vide notification dated 1.7.2001 and scheme for time bound promotion for different grades of Medical Officers giving retrospective effect from 16.4.1990 was introduced and under the said scheme a Medical Officer with 8 years of regular service in the Grade is entitled to 1st time bound promotion to Senior Medical Officer and thereafter second time bound promotion to the Senior Medical Officer (Selection Grade) on completion of 5 years regular service in the Grade of Senior Medical Officer has been provided. The Respondent State by a notification dated 2.6.2003 issued by the Special Secretary (Health and Family Welfare), under the APHS Rules, 2000, allowed 108 Medical Officers (Allopathy) the first time bound promotion excluding the petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering. She contended that amongst the aforesaid 108 Medical Officers (Allopathy) who were granted the 1st time bound promotion as Senior Medical Officer (Allopathy), the officers from Sl. No. 57 to 108 were juniors to her in the Grade of Medical Officers and they completed 8 years of qualifying service for 1st time bound promotion w.e.f. 15.2.1999 whereas she completed the said 8 years of regular service in the Grade of Medical Officer on 12.2.1999 itself. On her approach the respondent authorities granted her first time bound promotion vide order dated 24.12.2003 fixing her pay in the scale of Senior Medical Officer at Rs. 10,000 - 325-15, 200/- per month w.e.f. 12.2.1999. Her grievance in the matter of granting of 1st time bound promotion was, thus, met. In respect of the petitioner Dr. Samarendra Nath Kundu, the 1st time bound promotion was granted along with 18 Medical Officers (Homeopathy) vide aforesaid notification dated 7.6.2003. So far it was fair to both the petitioners but the problem started when the 2nd time bound promotion to the post of Senior Medical Officer (Selection Grade) was denied to them. 4. The vigilance department under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh vide O.M. No. VIG-29/2003(PT)/42 dated 6.2.2007 declared that there existed no vigilance case pending or contemplated in respect of 257 medical officers/officials. In the aforesaid O.M. it was mentioned that the vigilance clearance could not be issued in respect of the petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering and Dr. Samarendra Nath Kundu as they were involved in SIT case and sanction for prosecution has been issued against them vide No. MCON/03/2002 dated 24.3.2006. On receipt of the aforesaid vigilance clearance in respect of aforesaid Medical Officers the Respondent State constituted a DPC headed by Chief Secretary of the State with Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) and Secretary (Law and Judicial) as members. The said DPC held its meeting on 18.6.2007 for promotion to different grades in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. The DPC held on 18.6.2007 recommended promotion of the Medical officers to next higher post. The said DPC held its meeting on 18.6.2007 for promotion to different grades in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. The DPC held on 18.6.2007 recommended promotion of the Medical officers to next higher post. In the minutes of the said DPC meeting, it has been mentioned that the time bound promotion of 10 (ten) doctors could not be considered due to non-availability of vigilance clearance. The names of the present petitioners are included in the list of said 10 doctors. On the basis of the recommendation of the DPC, Medical Officers in different grades, both Allopathy and Homeopathy, were allowed 2nd time bound promotion excluding the petitioners. The petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering submitted a representation dated 26.7.2007 to the Respondent Secretary through proper channel requesting him to grant time bound promotion. In reply to her representation, the Under Secretary (Health & Family Welfare), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh vide letter No. HFW-14/2003 dated 29.8.2007 informed that her case for 2nd time bound promotion could not be considered for want of clearance from the Vigilance Department as she was involved in SIT case. On receipt of the above communication from the Vigilance Department, the petitioner addressed a letter/representation to the Secretary, Vigilance Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, on 10.2.2008 informing her that there was no criminal case instituted or pending against her at the time when she became eligible for 2nd time bound promotion on 13.2.2004 inasmuch as charge-sheet bearing No. 29/2000 was filed only on 23.10.2004. 5. The other petitioner Dr. S.N. Kundu also addressed a similar letter/representations dated 27.7.2007 and 2.8.2007 to the Director of Health Services, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, requesting him to look into the matter and grant the 2nd time bound promotion but to no effect. 6. Another DPC meeting was held on 29.8.2008 for granting time bound promotion to different grades in the Health & Family Welfare Department. In respect of the present petitioners, it has been mentioned in the minutes of the meeting that the Vigilance Department has not given clearance for time bound promotion and accordingly, the decision regarding their promotion be kept in sealed cover till the result of pending vigilance case against them is known. It is thus found that the Department applied the sealed cover procedure for granting the 2nd time bound promotion in respect of the petitioners as if it is a case of departmental proceeding. It is thus found that the Department applied the sealed cover procedure for granting the 2nd time bound promotion in respect of the petitioners as if it is a case of departmental proceeding. This is one of the grounds of challenge against the procedure adopted by the department. 7. The Respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that DPC held on 18.6.2007 could not consider the time bound promotion for the petitioners on account of non-availability of vigilance clearance. In paragraph 14 of the said affidavit-in-opposition in WP (C) No. 318 (AP) of 2010 and paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition in WP (C) No. 218 (AP) of 2010 it is stated that the correspondence received from the Vigilance Department was made known to the DPC, and thus, the DPC, being aware of the fact that there was a case pending against the petitioners which is of criminal nature, and taken up by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) could not give effect to the time bound promotion scheme to the petitioners. It was also stated that several correspondences with the Investigation Department were made so that undue delay is not caused in the process of consideration of petitioners' claim for 2nd time bound promotion. The Respondent No. 1 sought to justify that the DPC held on 29.8.2008 found the petitioners charge-sheeted on 23.10.2004 and that a criminal case was pending against the petitioners from 23.10.2004 till the date of the DPC held on 29.10.2004. 8. The Respondent No. 4, Under Secretary (Vigilance Department) Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, also filed a separate affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that in respect of petitioners, Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering and S.N. Kundu, the Vigilance Department had a copy of the prosecution sanction issued against them by the Health Department and, therefore, vigilance clearance in respect of the petitioners was withheld. The said affidavit-in-opposition is accompanied by a copy of letter bearing No. HFW-14/2009 dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure-D/2) signed by the Under Secretary (ANFW), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh addressed to the Under Secretary (VIG.), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. From the said letter it appears that the First Track Court, Basar vide order dated 23.2.2004 discharged the petitioners of the criminal charges. A copy of the aforesaid order of the FTC has been furnished by the writ petitioners in their writ petitions (Annexure-P/11) in WP (C) No. 218 (AP) of 2010. of Arunachal Pradesh. From the said letter it appears that the First Track Court, Basar vide order dated 23.2.2004 discharged the petitioners of the criminal charges. A copy of the aforesaid order of the FTC has been furnished by the writ petitioners in their writ petitions (Annexure-P/11) in WP (C) No. 218 (AP) of 2010. It appears from the said order that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were dropped for want of prosecution sanction required under Section 197 of the CrPC. In regard to said order of the FTC dropping the criminal proceedings, no denial has been made by the State Respondent as well as the Respondent Vigilance Department. Replying to the corresponding paragraph in the writ petitions, the respondents had simply stated that the deponents had no comments as the same are matters of records and admits the contention only to the extent borne out of records. No submission has been made by the respondents as to whether they have challenged the order of the FTC before any higher forum or the same has been set aside re-opening the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 9. In the notification dated 2.6.2003 allowing the 1st time bound promotion to Medical Officers (Annexure-P/2), there is a significant observation that promotion was given "without any linkage to vacancies on seniority-cum-fitness basis" from the date shown against each officer. Likewise while allowing the 2nd time bound promotion vide notification dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure-P/6) similar observation was made. If the promotions were made without linkage to vacancies on seniority-cum-basis, all the Medical Officers of different grades, who have completed the required qualifying service, shall be given the time bound promotion subject to vigilance clearance. There is nothing against the present petitioners, except non-receipt of vigilance clearance, making them ineligible for being granted 2nd time bound promotion. The respondents have come out with the plea that the petitioners were involved in SIT case and were charge-sheeted in the criminal case. From the pleadings, it is found that the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners on 23.10.2004 and the said charge-sheet was challenged by the petitioners in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh which was registered as BSS/SESS No. 183/2002. From the pleadings, it is found that the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners on 23.10.2004 and the said charge-sheet was challenged by the petitioners in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Basar, Arunachal Pradesh which was registered as BSS/SESS No. 183/2002. The application made by the petitioners before the said Court was heard and the learned FTC by an order dated 3.2.2004 disposed of the same with the following orders- Having considered all the above aspects in view, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution sanction is necessary to proceed against the accused doctors in the charges made against them in the instant case and the same being not obtained by the prosecuting agency unto date the accused doctors are entitled to the benefit of Section 197 CrPC and accordingly, accused Dr. S.K. Kundu, Dr. (Mrs.) K. Reiba and Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering are hereby dropped from the proceedings against them in the charges of offences under Sections 120 (B) /201 /218 IPC and discharged from all charges made against them in the instant case. 10. From the above order of the learned FTC, it is clearly found that the petitioners were discharged from all charges for want of prosecution sanction required to be taken from the authorities concerned. There is nothing in the pleadings of the respondents that the aforesaid order of the learned FTC was ever challenged in the higher forum and got it quashed restoring the criminal proceedings or criminal charges against the petitioners. However, it appears from the pleadings of the respondents that prosecution sanction was obtained subsequently on 24.3.2006. The approach of the respondents is that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were restored automatically as soon as they have obtained prosecution sanction from the authorities concerned. The department obtained the prosecution sanction in a case where there was no more criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. Such prosecution sanction can not be acted upon against them unless the order of the trial Court dropping the proceedings is reversed or restored by a judicial order. The respondent authorities did not take any step challenging the order of the trial Court and restoring the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Such prosecution sanction can not be acted upon against them unless the order of the trial Court dropping the proceedings is reversed or restored by a judicial order. The respondent authorities did not take any step challenging the order of the trial Court and restoring the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. It is a common knowledge that if the criminal proceeding dropped by the trial Court is not brought back to life, the accused could not be proceeded again by filling up the lacuna by way of obtaining the prosecution sanction on a subsequent date. In the eye of law once the criminal proceedings have been dropped discharging the accused persons of the charges, the accused is not liable to be prosecuted. The petitioners, undoubtedly challenged the charge-sheet at the initial stage and got themselves discharged of all the charges and also got the criminal proceedings dropped. 11. In the eye of law there was no criminal proceeding pending against the petitioners as on 23.2.2004 i.e. the date on which the learned trial Court (FTC) passed the order discharging the petitioners of all the charges. Admittedly the DPC was held on 29.8.2008 and by that time no criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioners and no step was taken by the Respondents to restore the criminal proceedings by a judicial order. The Respondents did not bring the facts of discharging the petitioners of the charges and dropping the criminal proceedings, before the DPC but the position was very much clear that at the time of holding the meeting of the DPC on 29.8.2008 no criminal proceeding was pending against the petitioners. The lapse or omission on the part of the Respondents can not be a ground of approval on the action of the DPC for not recommending the 2nd time bound promotion in favour of the petitioners. Except the criminal charge, there is no ground for withholding the time bound promotion of the petitioners. As soon as the criminal proceeding has been dropped long before the sitting of the DPC, it was incumbent upon the Respondent authorities to apprise the DPC so as to get their cases considered for promotion. Except the criminal charge, there is no ground for withholding the time bound promotion of the petitioners. As soon as the criminal proceeding has been dropped long before the sitting of the DPC, it was incumbent upon the Respondent authorities to apprise the DPC so as to get their cases considered for promotion. It is the established law that the promotion of officers against whom charge has been framed in the proceeding or charge-sheet has been filed in a criminal case, may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded but their cases for promotion must be considered if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges and if they are found suitable they should be given promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted. There are number of cases in this regard. However, amongst them, I may rely on the case of C.O. Arumugam & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.; reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 199. It was a case where the respondent No. 3 was not included in the penal for promotion on the ground that there was a criminal case pending against him but he was acquitted by the criminal Court and as such it was held that he must be considered for promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted and if he was found suitable, he should be promoted with all consequential benefits. Since the criminal proceeding was challenged by the petitioners at the initial stage and the proceeding was dropped by the trial Court, the ratio of law applied in the above cited case would be applicable to the present case. 12. The pleadings of the Respondents does not reveal anything about the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioners which may stand on the way of consideration or steps to be taken to grant the 2nd time bound promotion to the petitioners. The Respondents having not taken the ground of pendency of departmental proceeding against the petitioners, there is no more valid ground for resorting to sealed cover procedure in providing the time bound promotion, more so when the criminal proceedings against the petitioners have been dropped long before the sitting of the DPC on 29.8.2008. The Respondents having not taken the ground of pendency of departmental proceeding against the petitioners, there is no more valid ground for resorting to sealed cover procedure in providing the time bound promotion, more so when the criminal proceedings against the petitioners have been dropped long before the sitting of the DPC on 29.8.2008. The Respondents authorities are now bound to pass necessary orders allowing the petitioners to avail the benefit of time bound promotion inasmuch as the eligibility or entitlement of promotion, except the pendency of criminal proceedings, are not in dispute w.e.f. the date on which their juniors were given the promotion. 13. Non-existence of higher posts to give promotion to the petitioners can not be a bar on allowing the 2nd time bound promotion inasmuch as the promotion to the post of Senior Medical Officer (Selection Grade), under the TBP scheme is without linkage to vacancies on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness basis. The respondents, as per their pleadings, have not questioned the seniority position and fitness of the petitioners to serve in the higher post. The Respondents have not taken any ground that the ACRs of the petitioners for the relevant period/periods were not available or there is any adverse entry in their ACRs during the relevant period/periods which may deprive them of their chances of time bound promotion. 14. The petitioners' case deserves consideration taking into account the true purpose of providing the time bound promotion. It is universally accepted that where there are large number of employees in a department without any likelihood or chance of getting promotion in the near future, it becomes expedient to give TBP to remove frustration amongst the employees and give higher pay in terms of emoluments inasmuch as the TBP does not affect the normal seniority of others higher up. In this context, it has been observed in Dwijendra Sarkar Vs. Union of India; reported in (1999) 2 SCC 119 , that the true purpose of time bound promotion is meant to relieve frustration on account of stagnation and it can not be said that the Government wanted to deprive others who were brought into the department in public interest of the benefit of a higher grade. The frustration on account of stagnation is a common factor not only on those already in the department but also those who are administratively transferred by the Government to the other department. The frustration on account of stagnation is a common factor not only on those already in the department but also those who are administratively transferred by the Government to the other department. In the present case the petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering became eligible for 2nd TBP w.e.f. 13.2.2004 and the other petitioner Dr. S.N. Kundu became eligible with effect from 30.11.1997 and naturally, since they were not given the benefit of 2nd TBP, they have been stagnated in the post of Senior Medical Officer for a long period. They are naturally feeling neglected, deprived of the chances and also humiliated inasmuch as their juniors are holding the higher post with higher scale of pay. 15. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, I hold that the action of the Respondent authorities in withholding the benefit of 2nd time bound promotion in respect of the petitioners is unjustified and unsustainable under the law and so, it is directed that the Respondent authorities shall take corrective measures to remove the injustice done to the petitioners in the matter of granting the 2nd time bound promotion by issuing appropriate order/orders. It is provided that the 2nd time bound promotion should be granted w.e.f. 13.2.2004 in respect of petitioner Dr. (Mrs.) Oishy Ering and w.e.f. 30.11.1997 in respect of petitioner Dr. S.N. Kundu or with effect from the date on which their juniors were granted the 2nd time bound promotion with all consequential service and financial benefits. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of this order. The petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed