CWP No.12691 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.12691 of 2008 Date of decision January 12 , 2010 Anil Kumar Jindal ....... Petitioner Versus Central Bank of India and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Through the writ petition the petitioner impugns the order refusing promotion to the petitioner on the ground that he had not reported at the Zonal office on 9.10.2006 the date when he was bound to report for duty. The offer of promotion was made through a letter on 11.9.2006 when it was informed to him that he was found fit for promotion from the clerical post to the post of Assistant Manager in Junior Management Grade Scale-I. 2. There were few incidents that had taken place between the date when he received the letter of communication and the date when he was bound to report for duty. On 4.10.2006 FIR was registered implicating the petitioner in an alleged commission of offence under Section 379 IPC. The petitioner appeared to have obtained a bail order and when he reported for duty on 9.10.2006 he was served with a memo to explain the fact of a case having been registered by the police and he had explained that for a baggage found in his car Maruti 800 lying CWP No.12691 of 2008 2 parked outside his house, he was arrested but released on bail on 7.10.2006. He had narrated that on 7.10.2006 and 8.10.2006 were bank holidays and he presented himself at the Bank on 9.10.2006. The memo served on the petitioner reveals that the matter was being referred to the higher authorities for necessary action in the matter. On 14.11.2006 the impugned order was made stating that since he did not report for duty on the date stipulated, he was deemed to have rejected the offer of promotion. 3. The petitioner contends that he did not refuse the offer of promotion but since he was not relieved from duty by the fourth respondent he could not report at the Zonal office for taking the promotional post. He makes reference to the Promotion Policy Agreement (PPA) which contemplates when and how a person could be treated as refusing a promotion. The relevant portion of the para 4.6.3 reads as follows:- “A clerical candidate who refuses promotion under All India Service Channel when offered to him or who, after getting relieved from his existing office, does not join at the place of posting within the stipulated time or the extended period (wherever applicable), shall be debarred from participating in the promotion process under All India Service Channel for a period of 24 months reckoned from the date stipulated for reporting at the new place of posting.” 4. The deemed rejection of the offer would arise only in a case where after getting relieved from the existing office, the employee does not join at the posting within the stipulated time. It is evident that the memo had been issued on 9.10.2006 and the Branch Manager had stated that they were awaiting further instructions from the higher authorities. Three persons had been relieved on the same day but the petitioner was CWP No.12691 of 2008 3 not and to the contention of the petitioner that he was not relieved the response on behalf of the Bank was that the petitioner did not deliberately obtain the relieving order. It is too unnatural to accept such a contention for a person who is served with a memo when he presented himself before the Branch Manager could have no reason to refuse to be relieved. The Branch Manager has stated in the memo that he was awaiting further instructions from the higher authorities and even before the ink dried the impugned order was issued on 14.10.2006 cancelling the promotion order. It is a clear case where the deemed refusal offer cannot operate. Since I have found that the petitioner had not been relieved by the Branch office to present himself at the Zonal office for taking the promotional post, the impugned order is on a wrong premise that the petitioner had denied the offer of promotional post. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be restored to the promotional post w.e.f. 9.10.2006 with all monetary benefits accruing to the post, with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 12, 2010 archana