- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the views taken by the High court on the question of law involved in the case, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution with the High court's order insofar as it relates to quashing of the departmental "proceedings against the respondent after his acquittal in the criminal proceedings on a charge framed on the same set of facts.
(3.) The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the further direction given by the High court at the end of its orders directing automatic promotion of the respondent from 1986 consequent upon quashing of the departmental proceedings was neither legal nor justified in the present case. In our opinion this grievance of the learned Additional Solicitor General is justified. The High court's order also indicates that during the course of the hearing it required certain record to be produced before it and after looking into the same, further observation was made that the respondent was entitled to promotion from 1986; and a direction to that effect was given. We have no doubt that this further direction after quashing the departmental proceedingswas incorrect and must be set aside. The only further direction warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case is that the respondent should be a considered for promotion on the basis of the departmental proceedings being quashed in his favour. This is an exercise to be performed by the department and not by the court. The department is to consider the respondent for promotion not necessarily from the date mentioned in the High court's order, but from the date the department considers the respondent entitled for such consideration. The date from which the respondent is entitled to be considered for promotion is not a matter for determination in these proceedings and therefore that matter would remain open for adjudication in the event of that question arising hereafter. The impugned order made by the High court is modified accordingly. We are informed that the respondent is to attain the age of superannuation shortly. We have no doubt that the department would promptly consider and decide his case for promotion well before he reaches the age of superannuation.;