JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent stems out from the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the captioned writ petition, filed by the appellant – original petitioner. 2. The appellant had filed the writ petition claiming promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager. It is the case of the appellant that his juniors are promoted to the said post however, the respondent-Bank did not promote him on the said post at the relevant time due to want of vigilance clearance as per Regulation No.11.4 of the Promotion Policy of the respondent-Bank dated 03.02.2015. BRIEF FACTS: 3. The established facts from the pleadings are that the appellant, who was working as Assistant General Manager was considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which held the interview on 25.04.2016. The name of the appellant was selected and he was placed at Serial No.48 of the waiting list. 4. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 09.06.2016 was issued to the appellant alleging major lapses and irregularities in the N.P.A. Account. It was alleged that the guarantor, who signed in the guarantee impersonated himself in place of a dead person. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings were conducted and ultimately, the appellant was imposed minor punishment vide order dated 13.10.2017. The appellant was imposed the punishment of “Reduction by one stage in time scale of pay for a period of twelve months without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the officer’s pension, if opted for” as per the Bank of Baroda Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, more particularly, Regulations 5, 4 and 8(1). 5. After the select list was prepared, the respondent-Bank sought vigilance clearance from the Chief Vigilance Officer and vide communication dated 06.02.2017, the vigilance clearance was granted to other candidates, except the appellant by observing as under: “Lapses have been reported against him in the advances A/c of M/s. Mumtaz Trading Company. Chamada Mandi Branch, Lucknow Zone. Note to General Manager (DP) for referring the matter to IAC for classification as Vigilance or otherwise is under process.” 6. Thus, as per the said communication, the case of the appellant was referred to the Internal Advisory Committee (I.A.C.) to classify his case as vigilance. 7. Chamada Mandi Branch, Lucknow Zone. Note to General Manager (DP) for referring the matter to IAC for classification as Vigilance or otherwise is under process.” 6. Thus, as per the said communication, the case of the appellant was referred to the Internal Advisory Committee (I.A.C.) to classify his case as vigilance. 7. In the communication dated 21.02.2017, written by the head of H.R. Administration of the respondent-Bank to the Director seeking approval, it has been referred in paragraph No.6 that, the Internal Advisory Committee classified the matter as “Non-Vigilance (Finance)” in nature and submitted to Chief Vigilance Officer (C.V.O.) for concurrence. However, Chief Vigilance Officer has advised for classifing the matter as “Vigilance”. Thus, this communication refers that though the Internal Advisory Committee had treated and classified the case of the appellant as “Non-Vigilance” the Chief Vigilance Officer did not concur with the opinion of the I.A.C. and advised for classifying the matter as a “vigilance”. It is also opined in the said communication that since the matter is classified as “vigilance” in nature, this will necessarily lead to issuance of charge-sheet to the appellant in next few days. Hence, the memorandum of charge was issued on 16.05.2017. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer that the waiting list. in which the name of the appellant figured, expired on 01.04.2017. 9. It is also an admitted fact that since the appellant was of a rank of Assistant General Manager, the respondent-Bank sought concurrence/opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission, after considering the relevant records. This opinion was sought by the confidential letter dated 07.04.2017 from the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India. Pursuant to the said letter, the Central Vigilance Commission by the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017 opined that looking to the amount involved, nature of short comings (being procedural) and lack of mala fide, the Commission advised the case of the appellant as “Minor” (Non-vigilance). 10. When the juniors of the appellant were promoted on 01.03.2017, the appellant requested the respondent-Bank in view of the final opinion of the Chief Vigilance Commission to promote him. The same was rejected by the impugned communication dated 16.03.2017, which mentions that the representation of the appellant was placed before the Managing Director and C.E.O., who have not considered the same favourably. Except this statement, no reasons are assigned in the impugned communication. 11. The same was rejected by the impugned communication dated 16.03.2017, which mentions that the representation of the appellant was placed before the Managing Director and C.E.O., who have not considered the same favourably. Except this statement, no reasons are assigned in the impugned communication. 11. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the captioned writ petition, which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 12. Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the controversy and the issue raised in the writ petition in its true perspective. He has submitted that in fact due to the delay, which has occurred on behalf of the Bank in seeking the opinion from the Chief Vigilance Officer, the merit list expired and the appellant was not promoted to the said post. It is submitted that the waiting list expired on 01.04.2017, whereas after such waiting list expired, the Bank wrote to the Central Vigilance Commission on 07.04.2017, seeking an opinion, which was ultimately in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is also imposed minor punishment and hence, the respondent-Bank should have promoted the appellant to the post of Deputy General Manager, after such opinion was obtained from the Central Vigilance Commission. 13. It is contended by the learned advocate Mr. Singh that the learned Single Judge fell in error in interpreting Regulation 11.4 of Promotion Policy of the respondent-Bank and has submitted that the said Regulation will not in any manner affect the promotion of the appellant since subsequently, it has been opined that the case of the appellant will not fall in vigilance category. 14. While referring to the Office Memorandums issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India dated 02.11.2012 and 14.09.1992, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Singh that as per the said Office Memorandums, the promotion cannot be denied to the appellant for want of vigilance clearance since as on the date, when the name of the appellant was placed in the waiting list, there was no departmental inquiry pending against him. He has submitted that as per the settled legal precedent, only when the chargesheet is issued, it can be said that the departmental proceedings are initiated. He has submitted that as per the settled legal precedent, only when the chargesheet is issued, it can be said that the departmental proceedings are initiated. Thus, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the respondent-Bank may be directed to promote the appellant to the post of Deputy General Manager from the date his juniors are promoted. 15. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Singh has referred to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India vs Degala Suryanarayana, 1999 (5) SCC 762 , and the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, in the case of Sharbat Chand Jain vs Bank of India, 2000 Lawsuit (Bom) 838. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTBANK: 16. Vehemently, opposing the present appeal, learned advocate Mr. Darshan M.Parikh appearing for the respondent- Bank has contended that the present appeal does not merit acceptance and the same may be dismissed since, the learned Single Judge has precisely considered the Regulations/Promotion Policy of the respondent-Bank and when it was found that the appellant was involved in a grave misconduct, the Bank had thought it fit to obtain vigilance clearance. 17. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that this is not the case of denial of vigilance clearance, but the Bank had not received the vigilance clearance from the Central Vigilance Commission and when it was received, at that time, the waiting list had ceased to operate. It is submitted that there is no mala fide alleged against the Bank and it had made its effort to see that all possible steps are taken to obtain the vigilance clearance but, the appellant prolonged his departmental proceedings and demanded various documents time and again, due to which the respondent-Bank was unable to obtain opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh referred to such documents and has submitted that the same would reveal that the appellant, from 08.08.2016 till 15.10.2016, demanded such documents and ultimately, in the departmental proceedings, the charges are proved and he has been imposed a minor punishment. 18. It is contended by learned advocate Mr. Parikh that the punishment order is not challenged by the appellant and hence, he cannot be granted promotion. It is also submitted that, as contended by learned advocate Mr. 18. It is contended by learned advocate Mr. Parikh that the punishment order is not challenged by the appellant and hence, he cannot be granted promotion. It is also submitted that, as contended by learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the appellant, the present case will not fall in such category, where the departmental proceedings can be said to be initiated on the issuance of charge-sheet, but it will be governed by the provisions of the Regulation 11.4 of the Promotion Policy of the respondent-Bank . 19. While referring to the provisions of Regulation 11.4, learned advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that it firmly mandates that the promotion would be subject to vigilance clearance on the date of declaration of promotions. It is submitted that along with the appellant, there were other officers whose vigilance clearance were sought for and by the communication dated 06.02.2017, except the present appellant, other officers were granted vigilance clearance and the matter of the appellant was referred to the Internal Advisory Committee to classify as a vigilance case. It is submitted that subsequently, the appellant was informed to appear in the next promotion, but he did not appear, and hence, he is not entitled to promotion. 20. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh has submitted that Sealed Cover Procedure is also not applicable in the present case in view of the specific provision of the Regulations governing the Policy of Promotion of the respondent-Bank. Finally, it is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Parikh that any order passed by this Court will open a Pandora Box and the cases of those officers, who are denied promotions on this ground will also be required to be considered. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may not be entertained. Learned advocate Mr.Parikh has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Bengal vs. Dr.Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 INSC 906 . ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION : 21. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The facts, as narrated herein above are not in dispute. The appellant was selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee to the post of Deputy General Manager, and he was placed at Serial No.48 in the waiting list. The select list/waiting list was published on 03.05.2016, and it was to remain in operation till 01.04.2017. The facts, as narrated herein above are not in dispute. The appellant was selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee to the post of Deputy General Manager, and he was placed at Serial No.48 in the waiting list. The select list/waiting list was published on 03.05.2016, and it was to remain in operation till 01.04.2017. Meanwhile, the appellant was subjected to departmental proceedings and ultimately, he has been imposed the minor punishment vide order dated 13.10.2017, as referred herein above. 22. The respondent-Bank has denied the promotion primarily on two grounds; 1) as per Regulation 11.4 of the Promotion Policy of the respondent-Bank, no vigilance clearance was obtained on the date of declaration of promotion, and 2) by the time the Central Vigilance Commission opined that the case of the appellant was ‘non-vigilance’, the waiting list has expired on 01.04.2017. 23. We may deal with the first ground which is premised on the Regulation 11.4 of the Promotion Policy of the respondent- Bank. The same reads as under: “11.4 officers from the merit list so prepared as in 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 above, equal to the number of actual vacancies existing on the date of declaration of results, would be promoted in one lot to the next higher grade/scale as on a common date, subject to vigilance clearance on the date of declaration of promotions.” 24. A plain and simple reading of the said Regulation reveals that an officer can be promoted subject to vigilance clearance on the date of declaration of promotion. Vide order dated 06.02.2017, the name of the appellant was not included, and it was observed that “Note to General Manager (DP) for referring the matter to I.A.C. for classification as Vigilance or otherwise is under process.” 25. As narrated herein above and not disputed by the respondent-Bank, that after the Bank sought Vigilance Clearance Report for the purpose of promotion, vide communication dated 21.02.2017, the Head (HR Administration) sought approval from the Managing Director and CEO of the Bank. It is stated therein that to “to release or withdhold, promotion from waitlist in the event of not receiving “Vigilance Clearnace”, the authority to decide is vested in Managing Director and CEO” . It is further recorded more particularly, in paragraph No.6, that the Internal Advisory Committee has classified the matter as “Non-Vigilance (Financial)” in nature and submitted to Chief Vigilance Officer (C.V.O.) for concurrence. It is further recorded more particularly, in paragraph No.6, that the Internal Advisory Committee has classified the matter as “Non-Vigilance (Financial)” in nature and submitted to Chief Vigilance Officer (C.V.O.) for concurrence. However, Chief Vigilance Officer has advised for classifying the matter as “Vigilance”. In the very same communication, the Head (HR Administration) has referred to the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, which categorically state that as per the Government of India Guidelines and Promotion Policy, vigilance clearance is not granted under three categories, which can result in withholding of promotion:- (i) Officers who are under suspension. (ii) Officers to whom charge sheet has been served and disciplinary proceedings are pending. (iii) Officers against whom criminal proceedings are pending. The aforementioned three conditions are prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 and 02.11.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India dated 02.11.2012. The respondent-Bank has not denied the applicability of the OM’s to it. 26. In the very same communication dated 21.02.2017, it is mentioned that since the case of the appellant is classified as vigilance in nature, this will necessarily lead to issuance of charge-sheet in next few days. Thus, as on 25.04.2016, when the Departmental Promotion Committee met, and the appellant appeared for the interview, and also on the date of select list dated 03.05.2016, no charge-sheet was issued to the appellant and his case would not fall in three categories, as mentioned in the such communication. The show cause notice was issued on 09.06.2016, after the name of the appellant was placed in the select list. The Memorandum of charge was issued on 19.05.2017, which culminated into minor penalty vide order dated 13.10.2017. The approval was sought from the Managing Director since he had the power to release promotion from the waiting list in the event of not receiving the vigilance clearance however, it appears that no approval was granted. Thus, the promotion of the appellant could not have been withheld, when no departmental proceedings were pending against him on the date of select list and Bank was unable to obtain the vigilance clearance on the day, when the juniors to the appellant were promoted. 27. Thus, the promotion of the appellant could not have been withheld, when no departmental proceedings were pending against him on the date of select list and Bank was unable to obtain the vigilance clearance on the day, when the juniors to the appellant were promoted. 27. It is interesting to note that after the communication dated 06.02.2017 was issued, and it is also contended by the respondent-Bank that since the appellant was holding the post of Assistant General Manager, the concurrence/opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission for classifying the case of the appellant in the category of ‘vigilance’ is obligatory. Such opinion/concurrence was sought from the Central Vigilance Commission by the Bank vide communication dated 07.04.2017, i.e. after six days from the expiry of the waiting list on 01.04.2017. Ultimately, the Central Vigilance Commission by the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017, opined that “keeping in view the amount involved, nature of short comings (being procedural) and lack of malafide, the Commission would advise as under: 1. Radha Raman Tiwari, AGM – Minor (Non-vigilance) 28. Thus, ultimately the Central Vigilance Commission did not treat the case of the appellant as “vigilance” and on the contrary it was decided that it was a minor case and a “nonvigilance case”. In such circumstances, the effect of the case of the appellant having been treated as “non-vigilance”, will have retrospective effect, and wipe out the cause, for which the appellant was denied promotion. The juniors to the appellant were promoted on 01.03.2017, and it was always open for the Bank to obtain opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission, before the said date, however it failed to do so. 29. The respondent-Bank in order to explain the delay in obtaining the opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission, has come out with a very lame excuse of blaming the appellant. It is contended that since the appellant was demanding various documents in the departmental proceedings, the matter got delayed at the end of the respondent-Bank in seeking the opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission. Merely, because the appellant was seeking some documents, which can aid him in the departmental proceedings, cannot restrain the Bank from seeking opinion from the Central Vigilance Commission. Both the aspects operate in different realm, and are not interlaced. Hence, the excuse of delay, which is at the behest of the Bank, cannot be shifted on the appellant on such pretext. 30. Both the aspects operate in different realm, and are not interlaced. Hence, the excuse of delay, which is at the behest of the Bank, cannot be shifted on the appellant on such pretext. 30. The documentary evidence and the dates, as mentioned hereinabove, indubitably reveal that till the waiting list expired and the juniors of the appellant were promoted on 01.03.2017 i.e. the juniors at Serial Nos.49, 50 and 51, the respondent-Bank had failed to obtain any vigilance clearance from the Central Vigilance Commission. Thus, the entire exercise of obtaining the vigilance clearance as required under the Regulation 11.4 ended with the Office Memorandum dated 28.04.2017 written by the Central Vigilance Commission classifying the case of the appellant as “Non-Vigilance”. 31. It is not the case of the respondent-Bank that they are not bound by the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission in treating the case of the appellant as “non-vigilance”. Thus, the respondent-Bank cannot take shelter under the provisions of Regulation 11.4 in denying promotion to the appellant for want of vigilance clearance due to their fault and inaction or lassitude in pursuing the matter. 32. Had it been a case of very serious irregularity, the appellant could have faced a major punishment however, the respondent-Bank ultimately, has imposed the minor punishment on the appellant. The issue of imposition of punishment will not mar the entitlement of the appellant for promotion since neither on the date of meeting of Department Promotion Committee (DPC) nor on the date of select list, any departmental proceedings were pending against the appellant. 33. So far as the second ground is concerned, which the respondent-Bank has canvassed before us, relating to the expiry of waiting list the same does not merit acceptance at all. Merely because the waiting list ceases to operate, the same cannot dilute the fundamental right of the appellant enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in claiming promotion in wake of the fact that his promotion has been denied due to unlawful action of the respondent-Bank. When the respondent-Bank was conscious of the expiry of the waiting list on 01.04.2017, it was under an obligation to obtain the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before the expiry of such waiting list or in the alternative it ought to have approved the promotion in view of the communication dated 21.02.2017. When the respondent-Bank was conscious of the expiry of the waiting list on 01.04.2017, it was under an obligation to obtain the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before the expiry of such waiting list or in the alternative it ought to have approved the promotion in view of the communication dated 21.02.2017. However, the authorities sat tight on the entire matter and remained indolent till the waiting list expired. Neither the approval was granted by the Managing Director nor vigilance clearance was obtained in time. Once, it is held that the appellant is illegally and arbitrarily denied the promotion, and such action is set aside, the Bank has no other option, but to grant promotion with retrospective effect from the date when the junior to the appellant were promoted. The legal right of the appellant for promotion gets resurrected from the date, when he is denied promotion illegally, and it does not get frustrated on the pretext that the select/waiting list has expired. If such a course is adopted, then a person, who is illegally denied promotion, will never get any benefit from the Court of law, after the expiry of select/waiting list, even if such illegal action is set aside. Thus, the second ground, which is raised before us, also will meet the same fate and is rejected. 34. On an overall appreciation of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-Bank has acted in an arbitrary manner in rejecting the case of the appellant for promotion. We find that the learned Single Judge has committed error in rejecting the writ petition by placing reliance only on the Regulation 11.4 of the policy of the respondent-Bank. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the aforementioned facts and the approach of the respondent-Bank in handling the case of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspects and has primarily placed reliance on the communication dated 06.02.2017 issued by the respondent-Bank for denying the promotion of the appellant. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aspect that after the aforesaid letter dated 06.02.2017 was issued, wherein the case of the appellant was referred to the Internal Advisory Committee for classification as vigilance or otherwise, the juniors of the appellant were promoted on 01.03.2017. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aspect that after the aforesaid letter dated 06.02.2017 was issued, wherein the case of the appellant was referred to the Internal Advisory Committee for classification as vigilance or otherwise, the juniors of the appellant were promoted on 01.03.2017. The document on record reveals that in fact, the Internal Advisory Committee has found favour with the appellant and it was advised that “his case cannot be considered as vigilance”, but the Chief Vigilance Officer did not agree with the report of the Internal Advisory Committee and treated it as a “vigilance case”, which was ultimately, subjected to the opinion/advise of the Chief Vigilance Commission, Government of India, which has treated it as “non-vigilance”. These are the vital aspects, which are ignored by the learned Single Judge and hence, we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 35. The judgment in the case of Dr.Amal Satpathi (supra), on which reliance is placed by learned Advocate Mr.Parikh, cannot come to the rescue of the Bank, since the issue raised in the present case and the case before the Supreme Court are entirely different. The Supreme Court has examined the issue of conferring the actual benefits instead of notional on the post-retirement of the employee. 36. On the substratum of the foregoing analysis, the present Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8058 of 2017 and the impugned communication dated 16.03.2017 are quashed and set aside. The respondent-Bank is directed to issue promotion order to the appellant with effect from 01.03.2017 i.e. from the date of promotion of his juniors to the post of Deputy General Manager. 37. The respondent-Bank is also directed to pay arrears to the appellant accordingly. The direction issued by this Court shall be complied within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court, failing which the arrears shall carry 6% interest per annum. 38. As a sequel, the connected Civil Application stands disposed of.