JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (KAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows: [See Page 9 of the paper book of this O.P. (KAT)]: “1. To set aside Exhibit P3 Order dated 14.01.2020 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 985/2019. 2. Any other order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners herein (respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal) and Sri. G. Ranju Mohan, learned counsel appearing for sole respondent herein (sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal). 3. The prayers in Ext.P-1 Original Application O.A. No. 985/2019 filed by the respondent herein on 22.5.2019 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, are as follows: [See Pages 25 and 26 of the paper book of this O.P. (KAT)]: “(i) To set aside Annexure-A2 reversion order issued by the 2nd respondent as it is arbitrary, unjust and violative of the principles of natural justice. (ii) To declare that the retrospective removal of the applicant from the select list pertaining to the year 2016 vide Annexure-A4 is illegal, unjust arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the 3rd respondent Departmental Promotion Committee. (iii) To stay the operation of Annexure-A2 reversion order issued by the 2nd respondent until a decision is taken by the 1st respondent on Annexure-A7 representation preferred by the applicant. (iv) To direct the 2nd respondent to allow the applicant to continue in the cadre of Tahasildar till a decision is taken by this Honourable Tribunal in this Original Application. (v) To direct the respondents-1 and 3 to consider and pass orders on Annexure-A7 and A8 representations put in by the applicant retrospectively before 1st and 2nd respondents and to review the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee vide Annexure-A4 within a time frame to be decided by this Honourable Tribunal.” 4. (v) To direct the respondents-1 and 3 to consider and pass orders on Annexure-A7 and A8 representations put in by the applicant retrospectively before 1st and 2nd respondents and to review the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee vide Annexure-A4 within a time frame to be decided by this Honourable Tribunal.” 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides has rendered Ext.P-3 final order dated 14.1.2020 in O.A. No. 985/2019 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the impugned orders by which the original applicant was reverted from the promoted post of Tahsildar to the lower post of Deputy Tahsildar and he was ordered to be reinstated in service to the post of Tahsildar on the premise that his promotion effectuated through DPC process was regular and that mere pendency of FIR registered by the Vigilance Police against the original applicant will not be a legal bar for effectuating his regular promotion by DPC. It is this final order at Ext.P-3 rendered by the Tribunal that is under challenge before us. 5. The original applicant was earlier working in the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Revenue Department of the State Government. Going by his seniority and other relevant considerations, he was duly included in the field of choice for consideration for regular promotion to the next higher post of Tahsildar through the DPC process. In that regard, DPC (Lower) was convened on 15.6.2016 and the original applicant was found eligible and entitled for promotion to the cadre of Tahsildar in the selection year 2016 and accordingly, based on the said decision of the DPC, he was ordered to be promoted as Tahsildar as per Anx.A-1 order dated 4.7.2016 issued by R-2 in the O.A. (The Land Revenue Commissioner). 6. 6. Later, it appears that the ad-hoc DPC (Lower) had met on 11.12.2018, and the said DPC had recommended that the original applicant be reverted from the promoted post of Tahsildar to the feeder category post of Deputy Tahsildar, on the ground that FIR was already registered by the Vigilance Police in which the original applicant was arrayed as accused in Vigilance Case V.C. No. 1/2014 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kollam, on 29.1.2014 (about which reference is made in Anx.A-5 final report/charge sheet filed by the VACB on 28.12.2017) and that therefore going by the prescriptions in the provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as ‘KS&SSR’) presumably the provision in Note to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS&SSR Part II, on the basis of abovesaid recommendation of the ad-hoc DPC (Lower) which met on 11.12.2018, the Land Revenue Commissioner had later issued the impugned Anx.A-2 order dated 2.5.2019 whereby the original applicant was ordered to be reverted from the post of Tahsildar to the lower post of Deputy Tahsildar. On this basis, the DPC had recommended that the promotion granted to the original applicant as per the proceedings of DPC (Lower) which was earlier convened on 15.6.2016 was wrong and improper, and hence the said promotion is liable to be cancelled, etc. It appears that, it is thereafter that the original applicant was suspended from service on 25.9.2018 and later Anx.A-6 memo of charges dated 10.10.2018 was also issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner to the original applicant regarding the allegations on the basis of which he was suspended from service. 7. In consequence of the impugned Anx.A-2 proceedings 2.5.2019 issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner, proceedings at Anx.A-3 dated 7.5.2019 was issued by the District Collector, Thrissur, whereby the original applicant was ordered to be posted as Deputy Tahsildar and Anx.A-4 order dated 31.12.2018 was issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner. Further, in consequence of the abovesaid decision taken by the DPC in the meeting held on 11.12.2018, consequential proceedings was issued as per Anx.A-4 dated 31.12.2018 notifying the abovesaid decision of the DPC cancelling the promotion granted to the original applicant. It is these proceedings at Anxs.A-2, A-3 and A-4 that are under challenge in the instant Original Application filed before the Tribunal. 8. It is these proceedings at Anxs.A-2, A-3 and A-4 that are under challenge in the instant Original Application filed before the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has found that the abovesaid impugned decisions at Anxs.A-2, A-3 and A-4 are vitiated by illegality and impropriety inasmuch as, the earlier decision taken by the DPC on 15.6.2016 to promote the original applicant to the post of Tahsildar was correct and proper, and that mere pendency of FIR registered by the Vigilance Police on 29.1.2014 cannot constitute a legal bar for considering and effectuating promotion of the original applicant to the post of Tahsildar, if he is otherwise fit and eligible. It is the abovesaid view rendered by the Tribunal that is under challenge before us in this original petition. 9. The relevant provision of Rule 28(b) of KS&SSR which deals with bar of promotion through DPC process in such cases is contained in the Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part II which reads as follows: “Note: (i) Officers under suspension and Officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending in a Sessions Court or in any other higher Court for grave offences like murder, dacoity, etc. and officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a major penalty under the disciplinary rules applicable to them should not be included in the select list. But the suitability of such an officer for promotion should be assessed at the relevant time by the Departmental Promotion Committee and a finding reached whether, if the officer had not been suspended or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings had not been pending against him, he would have been recommended/selected for promotion. Where a select list is prepared the Departmental Promotion Committee shall also make a finding as to what the position of the officer in that list would have been but for the suspension or the criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings against him. The findings as to the suitability and the place in the select list of the officer should be recorded separately and attached to the proceedings. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee need only contain a note “The findings are recorded in the attached sheet of paper.” The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy only on a temporary basis. The proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee need only contain a note “The findings are recorded in the attached sheet of paper.” The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy only on a temporary basis. Officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have prima-facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the select list. But, the cases of such officers should also be assessed. The question of including them in the select list shall be considered when the result of the enquiry is known. However, officers against whom departmental proceedings are taken for the imposition of a minor penalty may be included in the select list provisionally if they are found suitable but for the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them.” 10. The relevant provision of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part II, on which reliance has been placed by the respondents in the OA/petitioners herein reads as follows: “..........Officers against whom vigilance or departmental proceedings are taken after the charges have prima-facie been established in a preliminary enquiry should not be included in the Select List......” 11. Construing the effect of Note (i) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part II, this Court in the decision in Sasidharan vs. State of Kerala, 2008 (4) KLT 149 , held that mere registration of a FIR by police as against the employee concerned for any offence as per the general laws like the IPC etc or even as special laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act, will not be sufficient and what is required is that charges should have been actually framed by the competent criminal court at the relevant time when the claim for promotion of the employee is considered. This Court held that the departmental or disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending only when memo of charges are issued by the competent disciplinary authority and that going by the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions as in Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 , a criminal proceedings can be said to be pending only when charges are duly framed by the criminal court, just as the law demands that disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending only when memo of charges are issued by the competent disciplinary authority in accordance with the relevant rules regulating disciplinary affairs. This Court in Sasidharan's case supra has categorically and unambiguously declared the position of law that merely because FIR is registered by vigilance police against an employee concerned for offences arising out of a special enactment like the Prevention of Corruption Act, will not make any difference from a FIR registered by the police against an employee concerned for offences punishable as per the general criminal laws like IPC etc and that the right to be considered for promotion through the DPC process in terms of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of KS&SSR Part II can be curtailed only if the competent criminal court has framed charges as against the employee as accused in the criminal proceedings, or the employee has been served with memo of charges by the competent disciplinary authority as per the rules regulating disciplinary affairs, at the relevant time. 12. In the instant case, there is no dispute that when the original applicant's claim for promotion for the selection year 2016 was taken up for consideration by the DPC in the meeting held on 15.6.2016, only a FIR was registered by the vigilance police as V.C. No. 1/2014 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kollam, on 29.1.2014 (about which reference is made in Anx.A-5 final report/charge sheet filed by the VACB on 28.12.2017). It is also common ground that no memo charges was also then pending as against the original applicant as issued by the competent authority in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 {hereinafter referred to as K.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules. It is also common ground that no memo charges was also then pending as against the original applicant as issued by the competent authority in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 {hereinafter referred to as K.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules. The vigilance police had completed the investigation in the above crime/vigilance case and had submitted Anx.A-5 final report/charge sheet only on 28.12.2017 before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. So, it is abundantly clear that the competent criminal court, namely the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, had not framed charges as against the original applicant at any point of time when his claim for consideration for the selection year 2016 had arisen before the DPC in the meeting held on 15.6.2016. 13. Further, it is also relevant to note that memo of charges was subsequently issued to the original applicant as per Anx.A-6 only on 10.10.2018 and he was initially suspended from service on 25.9.2018. Thus, it can be seen that no memo of charges of disciplinary proceedings as per the K.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules or no charges framed by the criminal court was pending at the relevant time for the selection year 2016 in the case of the original applicant. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly found that the promotion effectuated in favour of the original applicant by the DPC meeting held on 15.6.2016, pursuant to which he was promoted to the post of Tahsildar as per Anx.A-1 dated 4.7.2016 issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner was legal and proper, and further that the subsequent stand taken by the respondents that the said promotion is liable for disturbance as per Anxs.A-2 to A-4 on the mere ground that FIR was registered by the vigilance police on 29.1.2014 is legally unsustainable and untenable. 14. In that regard the learned Government Pleader would contend that, even in Anx.A-1 proceedings dated 4.7.2016 it has been stated that the promotion granted to the original applicant to a higher post of Tahsildar was provisional in nature. 15. 14. In that regard the learned Government Pleader would contend that, even in Anx.A-1 proceedings dated 4.7.2016 it has been stated that the promotion granted to the original applicant to a higher post of Tahsildar was provisional in nature. 15. In that regard the Tribunal has rightly held that even after the DPC process, ordinarily, promotions will be styled as provisional inasmuch as, any affected persons may have the right to challenge it by filing a review or representation through the competent authority subject to the norms in the KS&SSR and hence, even a promotion granted regularly through the DPC process may be styled as provisional, and merely because the said decision was styled as provisional both by the DPC and appointing authority when Anx.A-1 was issued on 4.7.2016 is immaterial, and that in pith and substance, the decision making process which led to the promotion of the original applicant as per the DPC meeting held on 15.6.2016 was regular and legally correct. Further, the Tribunal has also found that the impugned decisions of the respondents are even otherwise liable for interdiction for the ground of patent violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, the original applicant was never afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to the infliction of impugned orders as per Anxs.A-2 to A-4. The Tribunal has also found that the only legal manner by which a promotion effectuated by the DPC in the meeting held on 15.6.2016 in favour of the applicant would have been disturbed was only by resorting to the statutory procedure mandated in Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS&SSR Part II, which mandates that the power of DPC to revise select list can be exercised only if it is done within a period of one year from the date of publication of select list. In the instant case, the promotion was granted to the original applicant in the DPC meeting held on 15.6.2016 and indisputably it appears that the impugned orders at Anxs.A-2 to A-4 have been issued long prior to the period of limitation of one year prescribed in Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS&SSR Part II. In the instant case, the promotion was granted to the original applicant in the DPC meeting held on 15.6.2016 and indisputably it appears that the impugned orders at Anxs.A-2 to A-4 have been issued long prior to the period of limitation of one year prescribed in Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS&SSR Part II. For all these reasons, the Tribunal has rightly found that the impugned orders at Anxs.A-2 to A-4 are liable for interdiction and said considered verdict of the Tribunal does not require any interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review and superintendence conferred in terms of the Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. However, one relevant aspect of the matter has been brought to our notice by Sri. B. Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners herein, that after the filing of present O.A. before the Tribunal on 22.5.2019 and before the rendering of impugned Ext.P-3 final order in the said O.A. by the Tribunal on 14.1.2020, the original applicant was in fact served with a suspension order and later with a second memo of charges. That, the original applicant was subsequently suspended from service as per order dated 10.6.2019, and memo of charges in that regard was also duly issued on 22.7.2019 and he was reinstated in service on 5.12.2019 and posted as Junior Superintendent in the office of the Tahsildar, Kunnamkulam. Hence, it is pointed out that the abovesaid crucial and relevant fact regarding the second subsequent suspension from service on 10.6.2019 and the issuance of second set of memo of charges on 22.7.2019 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, and that the directions issued by the Tribunal to reinstate may give an impression as if, the said order of reinstatement is not merely as against the order of reversion, but even as against the order of suspension, which will create unnecessary confusion, etc. 17. The factual aspects regarding the second suspension from service on 10.6.2019 and the second set of memo of charges issued on 22.7.2019 are not disputed in any manner by the sole applicant. True, the abovesaid crucial aspects should have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal regarding the aspect of the original applicant again been suspended from service and the second set of memo of charges, etc. True, the abovesaid crucial aspects should have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal regarding the aspect of the original applicant again been suspended from service and the second set of memo of charges, etc. But, the said aspect by itself may not materially affect the verdict of the Tribunal inasmuch as, all what the Tribunal has basically assessed is as to the legality and correctness of the order of reversion from the post of Tahsildar to the lower post of Deputy Tahsildar, effected in terms of the impugned Anxs.A-2 to A-4 proceedings. The Tribunal has quashed those proceedings and directed that the original applicant be reinstated in service, thereby meaning that the original applicant has been reinstated to the higher post of Tahsildar. The legality and correctness of either the first suspension from service or the second suspension from service was never a matter in issue before the Tribunal either directly and substantially or collaterally. Though, the original applicant had made averments about the first suspension from service and memo of charges pursuant to Anx.A-6 dated 10.10.2018, the original applicant had not sought to challenge any of those proceedings in relation of suspension from service and disciplinary matters. Hence, the orders and directions of the Tribunal, cannot in any manner affect or trammel the aspects regarding the suspension from service made subsequently on 10.6.2019 and the memo of charges later issued on 22.7.2019. However, since Anxs.A-2 to A-4 orders of reversion have been set aside by the Tribunal, which have been upheld by us, the effect would be the original applicant has to be reinstated to the higher post of Tahsildar and not to the lower post of Deputy Tahsildar. 18. In the instant case, it appears that even after the second suspension of service the original applicant has been reinstated in service on 3.1.2019 to the post of Junior Superintendent, which is equivalent to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, etc. Hence, we would only clarify that the reinstatement of the original applicant after cancellation of his second suspension from service, should be to a post equivalent to that of Tahsildar with equivalent scale of pay and financial benefits, etc. Hence, we would only clarify that the reinstatement of the original applicant after cancellation of his second suspension from service, should be to a post equivalent to that of Tahsildar with equivalent scale of pay and financial benefits, etc. Neither the verdict of the Tribunal nor this judgment can be construed as in any manner affecting the rival contentions of both sides regarding the legality and correctness of the second order of suspension or the memo of charges. We are also now told that, after the Tribunal had rendered the final order in this case as per Ext.P-3 on 14.1.2020, the applicant had retired from service on 31.5.2020. Therefore, it is ordered and declared that the basic decision of the Tribunal in interfering with Anxs.A-2 to A-4 does not deserve interdiction at the hands of this Court, and the reinstatement of the original applicant at the relevant time should be to a post equivalent to that of Tahsildar and his promotion to the post of Tahsildar has to be treated as regular and proper and his pay may also be fixed on the basis that he has been retired from service in the post of Tahsildar and not in the post of Deputy Tahsildar. 19. The issues as to how the period of suspension should be regulated is not a matter that has been raised and decided either before the Tribunal in this O.A. or before us in the present proceedings and all such issues in relation to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the original applicant are left open to be raised and decided in other appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. 20. The orders and directions of the Tribunal will stand modified to the limited extend as above. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (KAT) will stand finally disposed of.