JUDGMENT : B.K. NAYAK, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner claims for promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to the post of Senior Assistant in the Nayagarh District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. with effect from 28.07.2009 when four of his juniors (Opposite Party Nos.5 to 8) were promoted. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined as Junior Assistant in Nayagarh District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 05.06.1982. In a departmental proceeding initiated against him during his incumbency, by order No.7469 dated 20.03.1990 (Annexure-A/2), the petitioner was found guilty in the proceeding and punished with forfeiture of two annual increments with cumulative effect, denial of first chance of promotion and further the period of suspension was directed to be treated as such. On 19.03.1996 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Again he faced another departmental proceeding and by order No.6392 dated 07.01.2006 he was punished by treating the period of suspension from 24.05.2005 as such and further he was reverted to the lower grade (Class-VI), i.e., Junior Assistant. Resultantly, the petitioner continues as a junior Assistant by virtue of such reversion order. Again promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant was considered by the opposite party-Bank and by resolution dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure-3) of the appointment committee of the Bank, six persons were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. Out of the said six promotees, four were junior to the petitioner, since they were appointed to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1987, while the petitioner had been appointed in the year 1982. Those, four junior employees have been arrayed as opposite party Nos. 5 to 8 in this writ application. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that one Raghunath Pattanaik (opposite party No.4), who had also faced departmental proceeding earlier as that of the petitioner has also been given promotion as per promotion order under Annexure-3 vide SI. No.16 of the promotion list. In the circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for giving him promotion to the post of Senior Assistant from the date his juniors were promoted, i.e., on 28.07.2009. 4. The Bank authorities-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner had misappropriated the Bank funds and was not a willing worker and had been punished twice in departmental proceeding and, therefore, he was not promoted. 4. The Bank authorities-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner had misappropriated the Bank funds and was not a willing worker and had been punished twice in departmental proceeding and, therefore, he was not promoted. It is stated in paragraph 10 that since the petitioner had already been reverted by way of punishment in a departmental proceeding from the post of Senior Assistant to the post of Junior Assistant, which was a major punishment, his case for promotion was not considered as per the provisions of Staff Service Rules framed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa-opposite party No. 1. With regard to the petitioner's averments that opposite party No.4 though similarly placed like that of the petitioner was given promotion, but the petitioner was denied the benefit, it is stated by the opposite parties in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit that opposite party No.4 had not committed similar misconduct like that of the petitioner, but the details of misconduct and punishment suffered by opposite party No.4 has not been indicated. 5. Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 have also filed an additional affidavit on 19.10.2015 repeating the averments relating to misconduct and suspension of the petitioner in relation to his earlier departmental proceedings. It is also stated that further misconduct and cheating by the petitioner were detected during physical verification of Itamati Branch on 10.09.2008 and allegations of irregularities were raised by way of complaint made by one Matia Nayak and six others and the matter was being enquired into, for which he was considered ineligible for promotion in 2009 when his juniors were promoted. 6. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit indicting the Bank's order No.8317 dated 01.03.2014 (Annexure-7) whereby the Bank has promoted him to the post of Banking Assistant-1 (Senior Assistant), with effect from the date of the order. 7. The Staff Service Rules of the employees of the Central Cooperative Banks in the State, circulated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa dated 28.09.1984 makes the provision with regard to promotion in Rule-18 thereof. Rule-18 provides as under : "Promotion: Promotion shall not be claimed as a matter of right. 7. The Staff Service Rules of the employees of the Central Cooperative Banks in the State, circulated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa dated 28.09.1984 makes the provision with regard to promotion in Rule-18 thereof. Rule-18 provides as under : "Promotion: Promotion shall not be claimed as a matter of right. (a) Where vacancies are to be filled up by promotion persons who are not disqualified on account of punishment or other relevant factors or who is confirmed in any post shall ordinarily be considered for promotion from the lower category to the higher category on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to the provision of these rules. (b) Where a promotion is made to fill up a temporary vacancy on account of any employee proceeding on leave, the promotion will automatically cease on the incumbent returning to his post. Such temporary promotion shall not be made unless the vacancy is for a period of 30 days or more." 8. The aforesaid Rule indicates that promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The only rider is that one should not have been debarred from promotion on account of punishment. The expression, "other relevant factors" as indicated in Rule-18 (a) which debars an employees for promotion has not been defined any where in the Rules. 9. In pursuance of the order of this Court, learned Counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 produced the file relating to the promotion of juniors of the petitioner as per order under Annexure-3, which indicates that along with opposite party Nos. 4 to 8, the case of the petitioner was included in the list of junior Assistant for consideration of promotion, but as against the name of the petitioner, it is indicated "proceeding not finalized". Getting a cue from the said indication, learned Counsel for the Banks submits that since on the date of consideration of promotion a proceeding was pending against the petitioner, his case for promotion was not considered. But he submits that no departmental proceeding has been drawn up against the petitioner, but some allegations were being preliminarily enquired into. To the further query of this Court, learned Counsel for the Bank submits that as yet also no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and no charges were framed nor served on him. But he submits that no departmental proceeding has been drawn up against the petitioner, but some allegations were being preliminarily enquired into. To the further query of this Court, learned Counsel for the Bank submits that as yet also no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and no charges were framed nor served on him. From the Bank's file it is apparent that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion in 2009. 10. Law is well settled that even where a departmental proceeding is pending against an employee, his case for promotion to the higher post shall be considered and the decision be kept in a sealed cover, meaning thereby, the fitness or otherwise of the employee for promotion to the higher cadre shall be considered and not to be left out, because of pendency of departmental proceeding. In the event, the employee is found suitable for promotion, after conclusion of the proceeding, he shall be promoted from the date he was considered. Apparently, in the instant case, though the petitioner's name was listed for consideration along with his juniors, who were promoted, but his case was not at all considered on the impression that a proceeding was pending against him. Therefore, the non consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion when his juniors were promoted, is illegal and unsustainable. It is directed that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant with effect from 28.07.2009 in accordance with Rules. The whole exercise shall be completed within six weeks. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. Application disposed of.