IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2011 (S/S) Chanchal Singh …….Petitioner. Versus Food Corporation of India and others. …..Respondents. Present: Mr. Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents. This petition is being disposed of by consent of both the parties at the admission stage itself. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that he is working as Assistant, Grade-I (D), in Food Corporation of India and was liable to be promoted to the post of Manager (D) in its normal course of service. A selection committee was duly constituted, which recommended the name of the petitioner to the post of Manager (D). All the same, the Regional Office of Food Corporation of India raised objection regarding the promotion of the petitioner on the ground that a departmental proceeding against the petitioner is pending and in view of which, such promotion cannot be made. The contention of the petitioner is that presently there is no departmental proceeding pending against him and even in case, any departmental proceeding is pending, the same relates to issues where only a minor punishment is called for, if at all it comes to that. Therefore, such departmental proceeding should not come in the way of promotion of the petitioner. The 2 petitioner has also cited certain circulars in this regard in his favour. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the Regional Manager has subsequently written to the Higher Authorities that he has no objection, if the promotion of the petitioner is made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court namely Jagan Narain Vs. Food Corporation of India and others (2010) 4 SCC 558 according to which were pendency of minor penalty proceedings or in fact imposition of minor penalty itself does not come in the way of an employee for being considered for promotion. Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondents has stated that since the representation of the petitioner is already pending in this regard before respondent no. 2, he has no objection, if direction is made for disposal of the said representation. In view of what has already been referred above, the petitioner is at liberty to cite all the facts before respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is further directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. No observations made by this court should be treated as a comment on the merits of the case. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.3.2011 Rathour