1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5040/1997 K.K. Bhatia vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda & Ors. Date of order : 12/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Kala for the respondents. ****** None appears for the petitioner today and also on last few dates. The matter is heard with the assistance of Shri R.K. Kala, learned counsel for respondents. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted or at least from the date his selection was held and was put in abeyance and he be entitled to consequential benefits and arrears of salaries, allowances, seniority etc. Petitioner has with the writ petition placed on record internal guidelines / circulars issued by the respondent-bank. It is not disputed that though some of the juniors of the petitioner were promoted, but case of the petitioner 2 was kept in abeyance on account of pending criminal case before the Court of Special Judge, CBI in criminal case no.23/83 and 11/84. Contention of petitioner is that such proceedings were not pending when the selection of his juniors was made by the impugned order Annexure-2. Charge sheet against him was filed in case no.23/83 in December, 1983 and in another case no.11/84 in January, 1984. According to the petitioner, arguments of the parties were heard by the learned court on 13.12.1996 and by order passed on that date, the court discharged the petitioner from both the criminal cases. The petitioner had already appeared in the selection held in the year 1992 and therefore he represented the respondents to give him the benefit of promotion and revoke the order by which his consideration for promotion was kept in abeyance and consequently his promotion was withheld. Even otherwise, the petitioner has relied on circular / guidelines dated 30.10.1986 issued by the respondents, which is on record at Annexure- 3 7. The said circular in para 3(11) provides as under: “3(11). In case of officers who are not under suspension and against whom disciplinary / court proceedings are not concluded even after expiry of two years from the date of officers were interviewed by the interviewing panel/DPC but the result of promotion were withheld on account of disciplinary court proceedings, the appointing authority may review the cases of such officers to consider: (a) whether the charges are grave enough to warrant continued denial of promotion and the promotion of such officers will be against public interest. (b) whether there is any likelihood of the cases coming to a conclusion in the near future; and (c) whether the delay in the finalisation of proceedings either departmentally or in a court of law is not directly or indirectly attributable to the officer concerned. In case the Appointing Authority comes to a conclusion that it would not be against the public interest to allow ad hoc promotion to such officers, their cases would be considered in the normal course by the Competent 4 Authority for promotion on adhoc basis after the expiry of the two years period referred above.” Shri R.K. Kala, learned counsel for the respondents however opposed the writ petition and argued that in one of the two cases of which reference was given by the petitioner in para 9 of the writ petition, the CBI has filed criminal revision petition before this Court in criminal case no.11/82 which is still pending. Reply to the writ petition was filed by respondents way back on 8.11.2001 and almost nine years have gone thereby since then. As per the own policy of the government, such cases should be periodically reconsidered at the waiver of two years. Now this matter has remained pending before this Court for last 13 years, the revision petition in all probabilities may have been decided even in one of the two cases, which were closed against the petitioner on account of the fact that the learned Special Court, CBI discharged him. Learned counsel argued that none of the parties who have been arrayed as parties in the suit are within the territorial 5 jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition should be therefore dismissed. I am not inclined to uphold this contention in the light of their submissions made in para 2 of the preliminary objection wherein they stated that petitioner Shri K.K. Bhatia was then posted as Manager, Service Branch, Bank of Baroda, Jaipur when he filed the writ petition. Mere non impleadment of one of the branches of Bank of Baroda at Jaipur would not be so fatal to maintainability of the petition when it is shown that petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondents when he was posted at Jaipur and where he was facing criminal cases on account of which, his promotion was held in abeyance. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to review the case of the petitioner in the light of their guidelines contained in Circular dated 30.10.1986. If it is found that the order of discharge passed in the case of petitioner has not been reversed by this Court, petitioner should be entitled to all the consequential 6 benefits including restoration of his promotion from the date his juniors were so promoted. That exercise should be undertaken by the respondents and appropriate orders thereabout be passed within four months from today. Copy of this order be endorsed to the petitioner for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/