I. S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) (Oral) - The petitioner, who is in the service of the Food Corporation of India as Quality Inspector (Grade II), impugns the order dated 18th lune, 1976 (Annexure P.6) whereby a person junior to him has been promoted as Technical Assistant/Quality Inspector (Grade I). This supersession is justified by the respondent-Corporation on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a vigilance case and till the completion of the investigation by the police and the grant of a clean chit to him as a result thereof, he cannot be so promoted. I see no merit in this stand of the Corporation.
(2.) The petitioner's assertion that he was senior to the promoted person (Paul Singh) and the Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of three senior officers of the Corporation had actually found him suitable for this promotion is not disputed by the respondent in its return. All that has been said in the corresponding para of the written statement (Para No. 5) is as follows:- " It is submitted that as the petitioner is involved in a vigilance case which is still under investigation by the police, the promotion orders of the petitioner could not be released. The petitioner will be considered for promotion only after the finding of the police are known and in case the petitioner is exonerated of the allegations levelled against him." It has been observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Kapoor Vs. The Union of India, 1980(2) Services Law Reporter 309 that mere pendency of certain case or enquiry against an employee is not sufficient to ignore in for purposes of promotion. Mere accusation against an employee cannot lead to his exclusion from the Promotion List-
(3.) In the light of the above I set aside the impugned order annexure P. 6 and direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and the observations made above with effect from the date the person junior to him was promoted. I, however, pass no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;