ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order dated 10/11.5.2001 issued under the signature of Deputy Chief Personnel Manager by which promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Personnel Manager in E-4 grade with effect from 23.9.1997 has been cancelled on account of pendency of another departmental proceeding and further for a direction upon the respondents to refund the total amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner on account of his working in E-4 grade.
2. Petitioner’s case is that he was granted promotion in E-4 grade in pursuance of the order-dated 2.6.1998. The said promotion granted with effect from 23.9.1997. It is contended by the petitioner that he was entitled to promotion in E-4 grade with effect from 23.9.1997 but the said promotion was not given because of pendency of departmental proceeding against him. The said departmental proceeding was concluded by exonerating the petitioner from the charges vide order dated 15.5.1998 and thereafter, petitioner has been granted promotion. In pursuance bf the order of promotion, petitioner started working in E-4 grade and getting salary but the respondents have issued another charge-sheet against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 29.10.1997 and another departmental proceeding was initiated and thereafter the same was concluded by imposing minor penalty of with-holding of increments for one year. All of a sudden vide order dated 1.5.2001 promotion order of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that at the relevant point of time when promotion order was issued, a departmental proceeding was pending against him.
3. Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of cancellation of promotion as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that respondents have no authority to cancel the promotion given to the petitioner with effect from 23.9.1997 on the ground of pendency of another charge-sheet dated 29.10.1997. Learned counsel further submitted that atleast principles of natural Justice ought to have been followed by the respondents while cancelling the order of promotion which was given effect to. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh, (2000) 7 SCC 210, and in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010.
4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that petitioner was promoted to E-4 grade vide order dated 2.6.1998 with notional seniority/notional fixation of pay from 23.9.1997, The said order of promotion could not be issued earlier 2.6.1998 since he was shown not clear from vigilance action as major penalty proceeding was pending against him. Learned counsel submitted that promotion order of the petitioner was issued during the pendency of another departmental proceeding in which he was issued a charge-sheet. Inadvertently the company did not inform about the pendency of the charge-sheet dated 29.10.1997. In that view of the matter, the promotion of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled by the respondents.
5. Admittedly the departmental proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner in 1997 was concluded in 1998 and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges vide office order dated 15.5.1998. Thereafter, by office order dated 2.6.1998 the petitioner was promoted in E-4 grade and the order of promotion was given effect to from 23.9.1997. Pursuant to the said order of promotion the petitioner started working in the promoted E-4 grade and getting salary. In 2001 the impugned office order dated 11.5.2001 was issued cancelling the promotion of the petitioner because of the pendency of another charge-sheet dated 29.10.1997. In my opinion once promotion order was given effect to and the petitioner continuously worked and was getting his salary then the order of cancellation of promotion ought not to have been issued without show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On this sole ground the impugned order of cancellation of promotion cannot be sustained in law.
6. For the aforesaid reason, this writ application is allowed and the order dated 11.5.2001 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application is quashed. However, this order will not debar the respondents from passing fresh order of cancellation after show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.