JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Amita Shah for respondents. Petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court under Article 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India and provisions of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 read with provisions of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 in the matter of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Chief Engineer. 2. It is undisputed fact that though petitioner was serving on the post of Superintending Engineer at the relevant time, practically he was given charge of Chief Engineer for long time from the month of November 2005 to November 2007, again from April 2009 to September 2010 and again somewhere in the year 2011 till the date of his superannuation on 31.12.2012 i.e. for more than a year when he was retired. Therefore, though it can be argued that promotion is not an absolute right of a person and, therefore, there cannot be an intervention by any authority and, thereby, there cannot be a direction to any of the employer to promote any of the employee, the fact remains that all employers are required to observe absolute equality and compliance of relevant provisions of law and rules while dealing with the service conditions of its employees, including promotion. Therefore, if there is arbitrariness, perverseness, selectiveness, discrimination and non application of particular provisions, in a manner in which, such provisions are to be dealt with and, thereby, if there is non action on the part of any of such employer which results into denial of legitimate benefit to any of the employee, then there is no option but to interfere in such selectiveness or arbitrariness by passing appropriate orders in such petitions. 3. In the present case, as already recorded herein above when petitioner was allowed to work as a Chief Engineer for more than 46 months, it becomes clear that so far as eligibility of the petitioner to work as Chief Engineer is concerned, there is no question or query and respondent has failed to show any irregularity so far as his duties as Chief Engineer is concerned, when he was allowed to retire on superannuation in the month of December 2012. It is quite clear that even on the date of superannuation, he was working as a Chief Engineer. It is quite clear that even on the date of superannuation, he was working as a Chief Engineer. Therefore, if such promotion was denied at any point of time during such period, such denial needs to be scrutinized properly. The question would arise that when duties are taken up from the petitioner as Chief Engineer, what is the reason for the employer in not promoting the petitioner on such post. Thereby, if there is no cogent and reliable evidence to confirm that petitioner was not entitled to be promoted as Chief Engineer, it is to be believed that the act of the respondent employer in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Chief Engineer, is a result of some non action on the part of the respondent. To that extent, it is nothing but the arbitrariness and selectiveness and may be the result of local departmental politics to see that particular person may not get all his retirement benefits to which otherwise he is entitled to. 3.1 As aforesaid, when petitioner was allowed to work for more than 46 months and when there is no complaint or short coming during his tenure as Chief Engineer, it becomes clear that respondent - employer has no evidence against petitioner so far as his eligibility of work as Chief Engineer is concerned or his credentials to works on such higher post. Such fact can be confirmed from the report of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), for which, following facts are required to be discussed. 4. Pursuant to order dated 18.02.2017, respondents have brought the original service record of the petitioner. On examining the documents after opening sealed cover, it reveals that Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has in its decision taken in a meeting dated 20.02.2011 endorsed that the committee has taken care of annual confidential report of the year 2002 - 2003 till the year 2009 - 2010 and amongst them, annual confidential report of three years are in the nature of extraordinary excellent and five years are in the nature of very good and committee has classified the case of the petitioner in very good category and, therefore, promotion committee has resolved that petitioner is entitled and eligible for the promotion. However, pursuant to charge sheet dated 01.06.2007 the decision was kept in sealed cover. However, pursuant to charge sheet dated 01.06.2007 the decision was kept in sealed cover. Respondents are directed to keep this decision and original record with themselves and to produce xerox copy of decision of the committee on record. Thereby, copy of such decision is ordered to be taken on record. 5. In background of above discussion, now if we peruse the factual details and issues raised by the respondent for not promoting the petitioner, it is undisputed fact that except one departmental inquiry, details of which would be discussed herein after, service tenure of the petitioner is without any blame and that though petitioner was eligible for the post of Chief Engineer at least in the year 2005 and though post was vacant at the relevant time, he was not promoted though charge of such promotional post was assigned to him regularly and repeatedly for more than 46 months. It is surprising to note that though post of Chief Engineer was vacant since the year 2005 and though petition was assigned with the duties of Chief Engineer as In charge on such post i.e. without promotion though petitioner was eligible for such promotion. It is also surprising fact that when petitioner was serving as in charge Chief Engineer in the year 2007 a charge sheet for so called misconduct in the year 2004 was issued i.e. after 3 years. It is also surprising that departmental inquiry was continued for 4 years. It is also surprising to note that meanwhile DPC had met and petitioner's result was kept in sealed cover. Thereby some other officer was promoted. Thereafter within couple of days departmental inquiry against petitioner was ended with punishment of censure only. This chronology speaks for itself. 6. It is undisputed fact that, petitioner has joined the service as an Executive Engineer after selection through Gujarat Public Service Commission in the year 1989 and discharged his duties as an Executive Engineer till 11.11.1997. He was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 11.11.1997 and there was no allegation or even memo during all such period from 1989 till 1997. In the year 2007 petitioner has received a charge sheet conveying that during his tenure as an Executive Engineer between 21.02.2004 till 29.11.2004 there are several irregularities in the tender process. He was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 11.11.1997 and there was no allegation or even memo during all such period from 1989 till 1997. In the year 2007 petitioner has received a charge sheet conveying that during his tenure as an Executive Engineer between 21.02.2004 till 29.11.2004 there are several irregularities in the tender process. However, if we peruse the report of departmental inquiry, copy of which is produced at Annexure D and E, it becomes clear that the only charge against the petitioner is regarding non-disclosure of some correction made in the original tender by the bidder. Whereas petitioner has rightly pointed out that, in fact, such paper work is to be completed by the Assistant Engineer and not by him. In support of such statement, he is relying upon statement produced at Annexure B, wherein page Nos. 32 to 35 confirms that such statements are prepared by some other officer and not by the petitioner and page 35 is also prepared by some other officer and not by the present petitioner. When entire allegation in the charge sheet rests only upon such non-disclosure of such correction in the original tender documents only, ultimately the fact remains that irrespective of such charges there is no allegation regarding tender process, in any manner, whatsoever i.e. accepting the tender from different companies or otherwise. In fact, even inquiry officer has accepted in his report that there is no proof of lack of integrity or there is no evidence or proof to prove that petitioner has committed any misconduct in awarding or assigning work to the company, which is either not competent or whose bids are not lowest. The inquiry officer has also observed that the allegations regarding ring created by the bidders are not proved. However, though there is no proper evidence before the inquiry officer, the inquiry officer has held that though charge No. 1 is not proved the charge No. 2 is partly proved. It is stated that such decision is only based upon the assumption that not disclosing the total number of erasers or overwriting in tender documents, is negligence or lack of prudence in duty. It is stated that such decision is only based upon the assumption that not disclosing the total number of erasers or overwriting in tender documents, is negligence or lack of prudence in duty. Therefore, if we peruse the entire record thoroughly when there are only two charges leveled against the petitioner i.e. one that bidders have obtained the bids by creating a ring, but petitioner could not find out such creation of ring and, therefore, there is negligence in performing his duties. The charge itself is very vague and baseless and prima facie pre-determined when it is stated that though it is clear that ring was created, petitioner could not visualize it. If we peruse the record, it becomes clear that though there are three bidders for same work all three bidders have offered less than the estimated cost as prescribed by the department. The comparative statement is at page 54 and 56 wherein it is specifically disclosed that in fact bids are in minus pursuant to estimated cost by the department and specific bidder has offered less cost from the estimated cost by the department and, therefore, there is no reason to award the work to any higher rate and, therefore, to that extent there is no ring. 7. However, though other facts are very much clear on record and thus it cannot be ignored that if at all the bidders have committed any ring to get selected work from any such department then even in absence of specific complaint, it amounts to conspiracy which may be considered as a criminal conspiracy, whereby basic evidence needs to be explained and proved on record before framing any such charge or before concluding that any such government officer has ignored such commission of ring. 8. It is evident from record that even inquiry officer has no option but to observe that there is no chance of commission of ring at all in the given facts and circumstances when all the teachers have offered less amount than the estimated cost for the particular work and that, there is no evidence to prove that there was any ring amongst the bidders. To that extent, absence of presumption of ring by petitioner cannot be considered as a misconduct or irregularity in proceeding the tenders and thereby negligence in his duties. To that extent, absence of presumption of ring by petitioner cannot be considered as a misconduct or irregularity in proceeding the tenders and thereby negligence in his duties. Therefore at least out of two, one charge is absolutely baseless which specifically disclose the tactics of the employer in dealing with such issue whereby it can certainly be said that it is nothing but pure selectiveness by issuing such show-cause notice and framing such charge against an officer who was knocking the door for his highest promotion, may be because some people in the department do not want him to be promoted for reasons best known to them. The second charge in the charge-sheet is regarding non-disclosure of correction, overwriting and errors during process of scrutinizing of bids and in submitting the report to higher authority for selection of particular bidder. However, as already discussed herein above, when there is no role of the petitioner in any such activity and more particularly, when it does not change the total amount of bid, which is otherwise also minus 13% than estimated cost of the work, it cannot be said that nondisclosure of such details in particular schedule is amounting to any irregularity, negligence or misconduct, for the purpose, reference of guidelines by the State Government is material wherein if we consider the para 201(K) 2, 3, 4, it becomes clear that the disclosure regarding irregularity, overwriting, error is with reference to the amount and figures of charges or price of cost offered by the bidder whereas in the present case, the alleged nondisclosure of correction is not with reference to any such figure relating to charges of any work and thereby touching the financial implication of scrutiny of any bid, while filling up the prescribed form when name of the bidder was wrongly entered by lower staff and when they have corrected the name, now department is finding fault with the petitioner that such correction is not disclosed while submitting the final report by the petitioner. Therefore, to that extent, even the department has itself while considering the issue of punishment, categorically observed and emphasized in the impugned order dated 08.08.2011, that such irregularity is not serious in nature and when it was collective decision of different officer even punishment imposed on the officer was reduced whereby the punishment was only in the nature of censure. 9. 9. Therefore, one thing is now certain and clear that alleged irregularity which was termed as negligence on the part of the petitioner, though it was not proved, the department has also considered that it is not serious in nature and at least one of the charges is not proved and therefore, though inquiry officer has suggested to stop one incumbent, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of censure only. However, at present we are not concerned with the nature of charges or outcome of departmental inquiry or the gravity of punishment except confirming that irrespective of any facts and circumstances on record, now it is undisputed and admitted position that the punishment is only in the form of censure i.e. minor punishment by all means. Coming to the factual details at this stage, it is undisputed fact that though this departmental inquiry was dragged for more than four years and though it was initiated after three years of alleged irregularity and thereby, though punishment was confirmed only after seven years of alleged incident, it is evident from record that such exercise was confined only at the time of probability of promotion of the petitioner. It is categorically pleaded and submitted by the petitioner that respondents have delayed the process to expedite all such proceeding in clear breach of their own Government Resolution dated 25.02.2011 which specifically provides for expeditious disposal of departmental inquiry cases. It is categorically directed by the Government to all its department and offices by such resolution that every departmental inquiry is required to be disposed of more expeditiously by putting it on fast track. Though specific time schedule cannot be adhered to, may be because of several reasons, the Government has, with such resolution, prescribed time limit for every stage of inquiry. It confirms that the maximum period for departmental inquiry could not exceed nine months in any case whereas in the present case, the charge-sheet itself was issued after the completion of three years of alleged so called irregularities. 10. It is submitted that though charge-sheet is dated 01.06.2007, the inquiry officer was appointed only on 31.07.2008, thereby department has dragged the departmental inquiry. Therefore, it is evident from the record that department has asked to proceed for no valid reason. However, at present the only issue is with reference to the interpretation of G.R. dated 01.09.2006. 11. 10. It is submitted that though charge-sheet is dated 01.06.2007, the inquiry officer was appointed only on 31.07.2008, thereby department has dragged the departmental inquiry. Therefore, it is evident from the record that department has asked to proceed for no valid reason. However, at present the only issue is with reference to the interpretation of G.R. dated 01.09.2006. 11. It is to be recorded that meanwhile pending departmental inquiry, DPC was made on 28.02.2011 and therefore, considering the pending inquiry against the petitioner, the DPC was obliged to keep their decision in a sealed cover, however result of seal cover is now known to us as disclosed herein above. 12. Therefore, even after DPC, though petitioner was otherwise entitled to be promoted, he was not promoted only because of pendency of departmental inquiry against him and has disclosed herein above the outcome of departmental inquiry, though unwarranted results, only into punishment. However it cannot be ignored that department had no option but to impose minor punishment of censure and therefore, enabled the issue raised at the point that what would be and what should be the position of such employee who is being punished by minor punishment only during the process of their promotion. 13. Therefore, now if we peruse and scrutinize the G.R. dated 01.09.2006, now it becomes clear that this G.R. is specifically dealing with the issue regarding procedure to be followed for the employees but were awarded minor punishment only during the promotion process wherein result of DPC is kept in sealed cover, as it is being done in the present case. The perusal of G.R. confirms that in fact by such G.R. practically Government has clarified certain provisions of previous G.R. dated 18.03.1998. The G.R. specifically confirms that pursuant to G.R. dated 23.09.1981, in case of employees who were awarded some punishment during departmental inquiry then in that case, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to take up fresh decision regarding inclusion of name of such employee in select list or promotion. 14. There is reference of G.R. dated 19.02.1994 in such G.R. of the year 2006, recollecting that the procedure to be taken in the cases where only censure was awarded to the employee after departmental inquiry, then what procedure is to be followed. 14. There is reference of G.R. dated 19.02.1994 in such G.R. of the year 2006, recollecting that the procedure to be taken in the cases where only censure was awarded to the employee after departmental inquiry, then what procedure is to be followed. However while explaining all such provision of all such previous G.R., in para 3 of the G.R. dated 01.09.2006, now it is categorically observed that minor punishment as prescribed in Rule 6 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1971, the concerned employee should not be considered as ineligible for promotion. It is further stated that except the punishment of stoppage of promotion itself on account of any minor punishment, the concerned employee/officer shall not be treated as ineligible for promotion and in that way, he is entitled to promotion i.e. irrespective of minor punishment if any such employee/officer is otherwise entitled to promotion then department should decide to include his name in select list. The next para thereafter, is most material and important for our purpose wherein it is specifically stated that the provisions of G.R. dated 19.02.1994, and 18.03.1998, reliance to such employees who were awarded only minor punishment are now cancelled and thereafter, some guidelines was suggested by such G.R. whereby now it is decided by the Government that in cases of employees/officers though result of DPC has been placed in a sealed cover because of minor punishment as per Rule 6 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1971, then, following procedure is to be followed:- "a. In case of minor punishment without financial loss to the Government, the decision of such minor punishment is to be conveyed to the DPC, which has to open the sealed cover and to declare it decision. Based upon such decision, benefit of such promotion may be either extended or denied; b. In case of financial loss to the Government, though activity as above is to be carried out, the promotion to the officer/employee is to be released only after recovery of financial loss to the Government and not immediately; or c. In case of stoppage of increment, promotion is to be released after execution of such punishment." 15. Therefore, prima facie it becomes clear that though the G.R. dated 1.9.2006 is only in the form of clarification and that too relaxing the condition of both the two G.R.s with reference to promotion of employees/officers, who are punished by minor penalty only, unfortunately, while interpreting this first condition in such G.R., respondents have on the contrary considered the procedure by interpreting it in strict sense that once the departmental proceedings are pending and result of DPC is kept in sealed cover, then, that sealed cover is not to be opened till the next DPC takes place. Whereas, on the contrary, the language and wordings of such condition No. (1) of the said G.R. is to the effect that in case of minor punishment, the sealed cover is to be opened by the DPC, which is to be met immediately after confirmation of punishment in departmental inquiry wherein such resolution of minor punishment in departmental proceedings is to be declared and thereupon the decision of promotion is to be taken based upon the resolution of the DPC. Thereby, if DPC has otherwise not selected such employee, then, he may not be promoted, but if DPC has otherwise recommended to place the name of such employee in select list by promotion, then considering the overall provisions of service rules, whereby in case of minor punishment, promotion is not to be stopped, such employee/officer needs to be promoted. The preamble of said G.R. of 2006 and all its contents on page 1 specifically not only supports such view, but in fact confirms that the provisions of G.R. dated 19.2.1994 and 18.3.1998 which are against such practice, are hereby cancelled and thereafter, the employees/officers who were punished by minor penalty only, shall be considered for promotion, considering the fact that though such officers are otherwise entitled for promotion, their promotion was affected only because of previous strict condition in both the G.R.s dated 19.2.1994 and 28.3.1998 and in case of punishment, no promotion is to be released. 16. The above discussion makes it clear that only to come out from such situation, the G.R. of 1.9.2006 has been issued. 16. The above discussion makes it clear that only to come out from such situation, the G.R. of 1.9.2006 has been issued. However, the second condition is now quite clear when it is stated that in cases where DPC has otherwise considered that such employee/officer is eligible for promotion, but for the reason of departmental inquiry, if they were not promoted at relevant time, then, in case of penalty of censure only, when there is financial loss to the Government because of such misconduct of the employee, the employee may be promoted. Whereas, in case of punishment due to financial loss to the Government, the officer/employee is to be promoted only after the financial loss has been compensated by way of recovery. Therefore, when in case of financial loss to the Government, if promotion is to be released after recovering such financial loss from the concerned employee in case of punishment of censure only, without referring his case to DPC; it is surprising to note that how and why the respondents are pleading and submitting to interpret the first condition to the effect that in case of minor punishment also, the promotion cannot be released till the next DPC is constituted and meeting is held. 17. Here, it cannot be ignored that decision regarding constitution of DPC and its meeting are otherwise within the control of employer and if they did not think it fit to have a DPC for pretty long time, as is being done in the present case, whereby DPC was not constituted or met after 2011 till retirement of the petitioner in 2012 i.e. for one year, then, it is not the fault of the employee, but it is selectiveness of the employer for not constituting the DPC even though promotion to the post due is vacant and more particularly, when work of such promotional post is being taken from such eligible candidate like the petitioner for long term basis i.e. more than five years. 18. Similarly, condition No. 3 is also liberal, when it confirms that in case of punishment of stopping increment or stopping promotion for particular period, the promotion can be released on completion of such period, but without referring the case of DPC. 18. Similarly, condition No. 3 is also liberal, when it confirms that in case of punishment of stopping increment or stopping promotion for particular period, the promotion can be released on completion of such period, but without referring the case of DPC. Therefore, even at the cost of repetition, it is to be recorded that though punishment of censure is lowest punishment and by all means lesser than punishment regarding recovering damages by the department from the employee, and stoppage of increment or promotion and therefore, result of DPC would not affect the punishment of recovering damages from the employees so also punishment of stoppage of increment for releasing his promotion even without referring his case to next DPC, how and why first condition is being interpreted in negative, since that condition in case of punishment of censure only, promotion is not be released till the next DPC is constituted. This interpretation provides absolute freedom of working arbitrarily and creating discrimination at the hands of respondents, which is not permissible. 19. It cannot be ignored that though petitioner was denied promotion in the month of August, 2011 pursuant to departmental inquiry under consideration and though outcome of such departmental inquiry only results into minor punishment of censure, it is specifically contended by the petitioner that respondents have promoted two juniors to the petitioner by order dated 23.8.2011. It is further submitted that it amounts to nothing, but violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner for being not considered for promotion. For submission, petitioner is relying upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Jal Board reported in AIR 2000 SC 2767 . 20. In support of his claim, petitioner has already produced on record the relevant evaluation report during tender process where there is allegation regarding non-disclosure of correction, overwriting or erasers. However, scrutiny of such report makes it clear that it was not to be prepared and thereby not prepared by the petitioner and therefore, no fault can be found that why petitioner has not disclosed the eraser, corrections and overwriting in such report. However, scrutiny of such report makes it clear that it was not to be prepared and thereby not prepared by the petitioner and therefore, no fault can be found that why petitioner has not disclosed the eraser, corrections and overwriting in such report. Copy of chargesheet and report of inquiry are produced at Annexures-D and E, which specifically confirms that charge regarding correction of ring is not proved and so far as charges of non-disclosure of corrections in report is concerned, it is made clear that such disclosure is not with reference to amount or figure, but with reference to name and it does not change the result of the selection process and thereby, it does not affect the department financially in any manner whatsoever. 21. It cannot be ignored that when respondents have not completed the departmental inquiry in time, petitioner has no option, but to prefer Special Civil Application No.7944 of 2011 before this Court for expediting the departmental proceedings wherein co-ordinate Bench has at the relevant time by order dated 30.6.2011 directed the respondents to decide it within a period of two months, it seems that even thereafter, when reviewing authority has not decided the issue in time, petitioner has no option but to file any Special Civil Application No.12351 of 2011 wherein also, the co-ordinate Bench has by its order dated 29.8.2011 directed the reviewing authority to decide the review petition within one months. Therefore, all this history clearly confirms that respondents were keen to see that petitioner retires from the service before he gets the promotion and thereby, such act is to be treated as arbitrary and discriminatory. 22. The petitioner has also requested the respondent to release his promotion by his letter dated 8.8.2011, but by reply dated 8.12.2011, department has simply conveyed the petitioner that his result of DPC is kept in sealed cover and that pursuant to G.R. dated 1.9.2006 that cover is not to be opened. If such cover is never to be opened as pleaded and submitted by the respondent, then, there is no reason to keep any such result of DPC in sealed cover. If such cover is never to be opened as pleaded and submitted by the respondent, then, there is no reason to keep any such result of DPC in sealed cover. If such sealed cover is to be opened only in the next DPC that may be constituted, then, on confirmation of lowest penalty like censure, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to constitute the DPC at the earliest to see that eligible candidates get promoted. However, when it is pleaded that two juniors to petitioner were promoted and when such fact has not been controverted by the respondent, then, there is reason to believe that promoting particular officer, immediately DPC was constituted, but for the purpose of denying promotion to particular officer, DPC was not constituted as and when necessary. Even at the cost of repetition, let it be clear that as per the G.R. dated 1.9.2006, constitution of DPC in case of punishment of recovering damages with censure and in case of punishment of stoppage of increment and promotion, there is no necessity of referring the case of DPC on completion of execution of such punishment and therefore, it becomes clear that there is clear arbitrariness and discrimination and selectiveness by the respondent in dealing with issues, since, now, it is evident from record that respondents are taking advantage of their own G.R. suitably and selectively as and when they so require. 23. The G.R. dated 25.2.2011 is also produced on record regarding expeditious disposal of departmental proceedings, which is taken into consideration. 24. Petitioner has also explained in detail about his role, both during the departmental inquiry and before the competent authority by his representations dated 7.7.2010 and 23.5.2011, but respondents have failed to appreciate the factual details, disclosing such explanation, which also results into injustice to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to interfere with in such selectiveness of the respondents. 25. However, respondent has resisted the petition by filing an affidavit in reply dated 27.1.2012 inter-alia contending their stand, which is already discussed and rejected herein above. Respondent has also produced G.R. dated 1.9.2006, which is considered herein above. Therefore, the Court has no option, but to interfere with in such selectiveness of the respondents. 25. However, respondent has resisted the petition by filing an affidavit in reply dated 27.1.2012 inter-alia contending their stand, which is already discussed and rejected herein above. Respondent has also produced G.R. dated 1.9.2006, which is considered herein above. However, it cannot be ignored that even respondents have contended in their affidavit in reply that the punishment of censure is not prejudice to the promotional opportunity to the petitioner as per the provision of Sub-Rule (2) of paragraph 2 of the G.R. dated 1.9.2006. If it is so, then, there is no reason for the respondents to deny the promotion to the petitioner well before his retirement on superannuation. 26. Surprisingly, when respondents are referring the original punishment of stoppage of one increment for period of six months without future effect would attract G.R. dated 1.9.2006, which allows promotion to such employee on completion of such punishment. It is pertinent to note that there is no reference of referring the issue to DPC in such cases and therefore, if we rely upon the submission and interpretation by the respondent, then, it amounts to strict condition for higher punishment like stoppage of increment etc. 27. In paragraph 16 of affidavit in reply, respondents have admitted that chargesheet was issued in the year 2007, whereas, departmental proceeding was pending on 28.2.2011 when DPC was met and therefore, name of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover with recommendations made by the DPC. This clearly shows and proves the inaction on the part of the respondents in not completing the departmental inquiry for more than four years. It cannot be ignored that pursuant to G.R. dated 30.10.1993, respondents are allowing promotion on ad hoc basis though departmental inquiries are pending, considering the provisions of such G.R., which permits them that if departmental inquiry is not completed within two years, then, promotion cannot be stopped, but ad hoc promotion is to be given. Petitioner has pointed out that in several cases, pursuant to such G.R. dated 30.10.1993, ad hoc promotions were already given. Petitioner has referred one order dated 1.1.2012 wherein ad hoc promotions were already given. Petitioner has pointed out that in several cases, pursuant to such G.R. dated 30.10.1993, ad hoc promotions were already given. Petitioner has referred one order dated 1.1.2012 wherein ad hoc promotions were already given. Petitioner has referred one order dated 1.1.2012 wherein ad hoc promotion was given to several employees irrespective of pendency of departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings against them pursuant to G.R. dated 30.10.1993. Therefore, now, there is clarity on record that respondents have acted arbitrarily and discriminately in refusing promotion to the petitioner. Such act of respondents needs to be deprecated by issuing appropriate orders in favour of the petitioner, otherwise it would result into injustice to the petitioner. 28. Petitioner has by his affidavit in rejoinder disclosed certain facts regarding promotion to his juniors, which is also taken into consideration herein above. However, when respondents have filed further affidavit in reply in respect of such further affidavit by the petitioner, though they have tried to protect their action, they could not come forward to confirm that how juniors to petitioners were promoted and whether in such cases, DPC was constituted immediately and frequently and why it was not constituted, if at all it was required to be constituted by the order of punishment to the petitioner so as to promote him because otherwise, DPC has in its meeting dated 28.2.2011 categorically confirmed that petitioner is eligible for promotion. 29. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is clear evidence on record that in withholding the promotion of the petitioner, the respondents have acted in discriminatory manner and thereby, their act is certainly arbitrary and therefore, resulting into grave injustice to the petitioner and thus, this Court has no option, but to interfere even in case of the issue regarding promotion by allowing this petition as prayed for. Thereby, the order dated 8.8.2011 is hereby quashed and set-aside with a direction to the respondent to implement the recommendation of the DPC dated 28.2.2011, which is disclosed in this judgment and thereby, to promote the petitioner on the post of Chief Engineer with all promotional benefits, both during the tenure of service and retirement benefits to the petitioner as if he is promoted from due date i.e. w.e.f. 5.8.2011. The respondents shall release all arrears within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. The respondents shall release all arrears within four months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. If it is not paid within four months, then, the entire arrears amount shall carry 6% interest from the due date till its actual payment. 30. The present Special Civil Application is allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute.