NARAYANA PAI, J. - (1.)The petitioner is a Government Servant in the Post & Telegraphs Department of the Central Government. He is a permanent official of the said Department He was deputed .to serve in the office of the Provident Fund- Commissioner and was on such deputation till May 1966. Thereafter, he was repatriated to his parent department-, the Posts and Telegraphs Department. In July 1967, when occasion arose, according td the petitioner, for considering his case for promotion to the next higher cadre, his case was overlooked. It would appear that the reason for passing over his claim was that the Government was contemplating institution of disciplinary proceedings against him in respect of certain matters connected with his service in the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner. Actually, he was served with a set of charges and explanatory allegations only in Sep. 1968. Thereafter, the enquiry was posted to the 24th of October 1968. When he appeared before the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer, i.e., the Officer expected to present and support the charges at the enquiry, reported that he was not in possession of any documents on the basis of which the charges had 'been framed and that therefore he was not in a position to go on with the enquiry. The enquiry, therefore, was postponed and has not yet been recommenced.
(2.)The petitioner, therefore, complains that in existing circumstances, there is no valid case for keeping in abeyance the question of his promotion any longer and prays for the issue of appropriate writs or directions either to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion or to expeditiously complete the disciplinary enquiry pending against him within a time to be fixed by this Court.
(3.)The counter affidavit oh behalf of the respondent, the Chairman, Posts and Telegraphs Board, New Delhi, puts forward the case that the question of promotion has been kept in abeyance in bona fide exercise of the power existing in that regard; that at the point of time appropriate for consideration of the petitioner's claim for promotion a Committee dealing with those questions has already expressed its opinion, but, that in view of the pending departmental enquiry the same has been kept in a sealed cover; that the inability to proceed with the enquiry is due to causes beyond the control of the respondents, the relevant papers having been filed in certain Courts of law in the State of Andhra Pradesh in connection with certain criminal proceedings against other officials, that as soon as the papers are available, the department will proceeed expeditiously with the enquiry at the end of which effect will be given to the opinion placed in a sealed cover as stated above; that the petitioner need have no grievance whatever because one of the promotional po'sts has been kept vacant so as to be made available to him in the event of the enquiry resulting in his favour and that whatever injustice that might have been caused to him may be remedied by appropriate orders at the time of promotion, as for example, by giving retrospective effect, if necessary.
;