Promotion cannot be refused on pending disciplinary proceedings when an interim stay and prior direction require expeditious consideration and effecting promotion.

A refusal to grant promotion was held unsustainable where disciplinary proceedings remained under an interim stay and the application to vacate that stay was still pending. The earlier writ direction required the authorities not only to consider the employee's case but to effect promotion expeditiously, and the rejection order was inconsistent with that mandate. The court therefore rejected the contention that pending disciplinary proceedings justified withholding promotion, and upheld the single Judge's order directing promotion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to grant promotion to the respondent was sustainable in view of the subsisting interim stay of disciplinary proceedings and the earlier judicial direction to consider and effect promotion expeditiously.

Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings had been put in suspension by an interim order, and the application seeking vacation of that order had not been disposed of. In that situation, the earlier direction in the connected writ proceedings required the authorities not merely to consider the respondent's case but also to effect promotion expeditiously. The impugned rejection order was inconsistent with that direction and could not be justified on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were still pending.

Conclusion: The refusal to promote the respondent was not sustainable and the challenge to the single Judge's order failed.

---