JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. The case was heard on 28-02-2014 and today is fixed for delivery of order. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nur Mohammad, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. Though initially the writ petition was filed challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13-07-2009 imposing on the petitioner the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for two consecutive years without future benefit, during the course of his argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has limited the challenge to withholding of annual increment beyond the period of two years and promotion of the petitioner to the next higher rank of Assam Battalion Inspector. 3. Case of the petitioner as highlighted in the writ petition is that he joined service as Police Constable in the year 1982. In the course of his service, he was promoted to the rank of Assam Battalion Sub-Inspector. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was posted in the 3rd Assam Police Battalion, Titabar. In addition to his normal duties, he was also entrusted with treasury duty. 4. By order dated 28-08-2006 passed by the Commandant of the said Battalion, petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegation of involvement in criminal conspiracy to misappropriate Government money. Subsequently, by order dated 07-11-2006, suspension order was withdrawn and the petitioner was re-instated in service. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner charging him with misappropriation of Government money, gross misconduct and negligence in the discharge of duty. At the end of the departmental proceeding, the Commandant of the 3rd Assam Police Battalion, who is also the disciplinary authority, passed the order dated 13-07-2009. The disciplinary authority noted that in the enquiry it was proved that the petitioner had behaved in a questionable manner while dealing with large amount of Government money though none of the money was finally misappropriated by the petitioner. Observing that the charges of gross misconduct and negligence of duty were proved against the petitioner, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was disposed of by awarding the major punishment of stoppage of annual increment for two consecutive years without future benefit. 5. The office of the Director General of Police, Assam issued notification dated 24-12-2010 promoting as many as 59 Assam Battalion Sub-Inspectors to the rank of Assam Battalion Inspector. In the said notification, name of the petitioner was also included. 5. The office of the Director General of Police, Assam issued notification dated 24-12-2010 promoting as many as 59 Assam Battalion Sub-Inspectors to the rank of Assam Battalion Inspector. In the said notification, name of the petitioner was also included. 58 of the Assam Battalion Sub-Inspectors were promoted to the rank of Inspector following the notification dated 24-12-2010 but petitioner was not promoted. Promotion of the other promotees have also been regularized in the meanwhile. 6. In connection with the incident in respect of which the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, the departmental authorities had also lodged a first information before the Titabar Police Station on the basis of which Titabar Police Station Case No. 79/2006 was registered. Investigation of the case was later on handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as per decision of the Government of Assam and the Government of India. The case was thereafter registered as CBI/SPE/EOW/Kolkata Case No. RC04/E/2009/Kol. dated 24-02-2009. CBI completed the investigation and submitted charge-sheet on 31-12-2010. Though petitioner was initially named as accused, he was not charge-sheeted. Subsequently, supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 24-12-2012 against two more persons but here also petitioner was not included. 7. As the petitioner was still not given promotion inspite of the notification dated 24-12-2010 and inspite of not being charge-sheeted in the criminal case, petitioner submitted a representation dated 25-07-2010 before the Commandant of the 3rd Assam Police Battalion requesting the said authority to give effect to his promotion order. He also prayed for payment of his annual increment. However, there was no response to the said representation. 8. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 9. Respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit. It is stated that petitioner joined in the 3rd Assam Police Battalion as Havildar/Clerk in the year 1999 and thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Assam Battalion Sub-Inspector in the year 2003. Petitioner was entrusted to do treasury duty in addition to his normal duties w.e.f. 30-06-2006. Petitioner was arrested in connection with the police case though he was subsequently released. Later on, investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI. Petitioner was entrusted to do treasury duty in addition to his normal duties w.e.f. 30-06-2006. Petitioner was arrested in connection with the police case though he was subsequently released. Later on, investigation of the case was handed over to the CBI. Stand of the respondent No. 3 is that though the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Assam Battalion Inspector vide Government notification dated 24-12-2010, the promotion order in respect of the petitioner was not given effect to because of pendency of the criminal case. It is the further stand of respondent No. 3 that annual increment of the petitioner could not be paid from the year 2006 due to involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case. 10. Mr. M. Biswas, learned Counsel for the petitioner in his brief submission argued that the penalty order dated 13-07-2009 whereby annual increment for two consecutive years was stopped has already worked itself out. The penalty order having been given its full effect cannot now be extended ad-infinitum to deny the petitioner further annual increments beyond the period of two consecutive years as well as his promotion pursuant to the notification dated 24-12-2010. Since petitioner has not been charge-sheeted in the criminal case, therefore withholding of annual increment and promotion on the ground of pendency of criminal case would not be justified. 11. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand relies on the affidavit of respondent No. 3 and supports the stand taken by the Government. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 13. From the affidavit of respondent No. 3, it is quite clear that annual increment as well as promotion of the petitioner to the rank of Inspector has been withheld on the ground of pendency of criminal case. However, petitioner in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 of the writ petition has categorically stated that the Investigating Officer of CBI had submitted charge-sheet on 31-12-2010 and supplementary charge-sheet on 24-12-2012 but in both the charge-sheets name of the petitioner did not appear. In other words, though the petitioner was initially arrayed as an accused person, he has not been charge-sheeted. There is no denial by respondent No. 3 in his affidavit to the above assertion of fact by the petitioner. In other words, though the petitioner was initially arrayed as an accused person, he has not been charge-sheeted. There is no denial by respondent No. 3 in his affidavit to the above assertion of fact by the petitioner. Therefore, though the concerned criminal case may be pending in the Court, the same cannot be said to be pending against the petitioner as he is not charge sheeted. 14. Coming to the order of penalty dated 13-07-2009, it is seen that the petitioner was awarded the major penalty of stoppage of his annual increment for two consecutive years without future benefit. In his affidavit, respondent No. 3 has stated that annual increment to the petitioner has been withheld since the year 2006. It that be so, as per the order of penalty, the annual increment could have been withheld for two consecutive years from the year 2006 and not beyond. 15. As per Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-III, one of the major penalties that may be imposed upon members of the police service is withholding of increments or promotion. In other words, if the penalty of withholding of increment is imposed, promotion cannot be denied on the same ground if the officer is otherwise eligible for promotion. 16. Having regard to the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that withholding of annual increment to the petitioner beyond the period covered by the penalty order dated 13-07-2009 and withholding of promotion to the rank of Inspector pursuant to the notification dated 24-12-2010 is not justified. Petitioner has accordingly made out a case for interference by the Court. 17. Respondents are therefore directed to release the annual increments of the petitioner as per his entitlement and also to give effect to his promotion to the rank of Inspector pursuant to the notification dated 24-12-2010 effective from such date. Respondents may however clarify that such promotion of the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the criminal case. Writ petition is accordingly allowed but without any order as to cost. Petition allowed