THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.9598 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) allowing O.A.No.851 of 2008 filed by the first respondent seeking to declare the action of the petitioners in not promoting him as Deputy Commissioner with effect from 16.09.1995, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent joined in Indian Revenue Service as Assistant Commissioner in 1991 and he was due for promotion in the normal course as Deputy Commissioner with effect from 16.09.1995 along with his batchmates. In the year 1999, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and after enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed on him the penalty of withholding of increments for two years without cumulative effect vide order, dated 15.04.2009. The first respondent states that the criminal cases filed against him on the allegation of illegal gratification and disproportionate assets were also ended in acquittal. He further states that though his name was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner along with his batchmates in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting on 15.07.1997, the Committee put the result of his selection in a sealed cover. He also states that as on 16.09.1995, neither criminal cases nor departmental proceedings are pending against him, but for the subsequent events, he cannot be denied promotion. Hence, he filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal, which in turn allowed the same, directing the respondents to promote the first respondent as Deputy Commissioner with effect from 16.09.1995 and to fix his pay accordingly, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that as on the date of the DPC meeting i.e., 15.07.2007, the first respondent was under suspension and therefore, the recommendation pertaining to him was kept in a sealed cover. He has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum, dated 14.09.1992, which reads as under: “At the time of consideration of cases of the Government Servants for promotion, details of Government Servants in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee:- (i) Government Servants under suspension; (ii) Government in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and (iii) Government Servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the amendment made to the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 vide Office Memorandum dated 24.02.2003 and that paragraph 17.9 of the said memorandum reads as under: “A Government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in para 2 above arise after the recommendations of the DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by the DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him and the provisions contained in this OM, will be applicable in his case also”. 6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that no criminal cases or disciplinary proceedings were pending as on 16.09.1995 against the first respondent. As per the order impugned, it clearly shows that merely because the first respondent was under suspension by the date of DPC meeting i.e, 15.07.1997, he cannot be denied promotion as Deputy Commissioner and there is no need to follow the procedure of sealed cover, which was not produced by the petitioners. Because of long pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, i.e., nearly ten years and as the first respondent was acquitted in criminal cases, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly observed that he cannot be denied promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner on par with his batchmates. Therefore, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 7. The writ petition fails, and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:29.04.2010. sj