Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010193132021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6533/2021 HEMENDRA KUMAR TALUKDAR S/O. LT. TARANI KANTA TAKUKDAR, VILL. SUNDARBARI, P.O. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, P.S. JALUKBARI, UDAYAN PATH GUWAHATI-781014, ASSAM. VERSUS THE ASSAM CO OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE THE ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD. PAN BAZAR GUWAAHTI-781001 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ASSAM CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD. SUALKUCHI BRANCH SUALKUCHI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A C BORBORA, MR. M SMITH,MR. N B GOHAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APEX BANK, Page No.# 2/18 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 11-09-2025 Heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M. Smith, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur along with Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to an order dated 06-11-2020, passed by the respondent No. 2, disposing of the departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner, by imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs. 5,23,964/- (Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty four) only upon him. The petitioner has also challenged a communication dated 03-05-2021, by which his prayer for review of the order of penalty of recovery, imposed upon him, came to be rejected. 3. The facts in brief required for adjudication of the issue, arising in the matter is noticed, hereunder. The petitioner, herein, had joined the respondent No. 1/ Bank as an Assistant-cum- Cashier on 01-07-1991. Thereafter, on clearing the prescribed departmental examination, he came to be promoted to the post of Sub-Accountant, w.e.f. 21-03-2011. The petitioner while being posted at the Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent No. 1/ Bank, he was entrusted with the duties of checking of the Apex Bank Small Deposit (hereinafter referred to as ‘ABSD’) accounts, w.e.f. 08-05-2012. Irregularities being found to have existed in the said ABSD accounts maintained with Page No.# 3/18 the Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent No. 1/ Bank, a preliminary enquiry was made in the matter and basing on the materials coming on record in pursuance thereof, the petitioner, herein, was issued with a show-cause notice dated 16-03-2016, by the respondent No. 2, framing 04 (four) Articles of Charges against him, therein. It is also projected in the writ petition that along with the petitioner 04 (four) other officials of the Bank, including one Bhupendra Goswami, who was the then Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent No. 1 Bank were also proceeded against and departmental proceedings in their cases were also instituted basing on similar charges. The petitioner, on receipt of the show-cause notice, dated 16-03-2016, proceeded to submit his show-cause reply thereto on 16-05-2016, denying the charges levelled against him. The petitioner, in his reply, also explained in detail the manner in which the ABSD accounts were dealt with by him and that he was not guilty of the charges framed against him. The petitioner basing on the clarifications put forth by him in this reply had prayed for exoneration from the charges framed against him. The show-cause reply as submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, a departmental enquiry in the matter, came to be directed and an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed for the purpose. It is seen from the materials brought on record that the departmental enquiry commenced on 20-11-2016 and was closed on the same day. Upon closure of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to submit his Enquiry Report on 20- 12-2016. The Enquiry Officer in his report, held the Article of Charges framed against the petitioner to have been partially established in the enquiry. Page No.# 4/18 The respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 30-04-2017 forwarded the Enquiry Report to the petitioner, herein, and required him to submit his response thereto. Accordingly, the petitioner vide his communication dated 15-05-2017, submitted his representation against the said Enquiry Report. The matter was thereafter placed before the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1/ Bank for its consideration. The Board of Directors of the Bank, in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, resolved that all the 05 (five) employees involved, including the petitioner, herein, were responsible for the irregularities as occasioning in the ABSD Accounts of the Sualkuchi Branch of the Bank and accordingly, required the pecuniary loss occasioning to the Bank, which was quantified to be to the tune of Rs. 26,19,820/- (Twenty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty), to be recovered in equal proportion from each of the employees involved, including the petitioner, herein. In terms of the decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1/ Bank, the respondent No. 2, vide order dated 06-11-2020 proceeded to convey the said decision to the petitioner, herein, and required him to pay an amount of Rs. 5,23,964/- (Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Four only) being the 1/5th share of the total pecuniary loss occasioning to the Bank. The departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner was disposed of with imposition of the said recovery. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 06-11-2020 and the recovery directed to be made, therein, from him, approached the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1/ Bank by way of filing a representation praying for review of the decision arrived at in the matter by it. The said representation submitted by the petitioner Page No.# 5/18 was considered by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 04-03-2021 and after such consideration, the same came to be rejected. The rejection of the prayer of the petitioner, for review of penalty imposed upon him, was communicated by the respondent No. 2, to him vide issuance of a communication dated 03-05-2021. Being aggrieved by the imposition of the said penalty of recovery upon him, the petitioner had instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the petitioner having been assigned the responsibility of checking ABSD accounts only w.e.f. 08-05-2021 and the irregularities detected being for period much before the date when the petitioner was assigned the said responsibility, the institution of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, herein, was not warranted. 5. Mr. Borbora, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the Article of Charges as framed against the petitioner, vide show-cause notice dated 16-03-2016, has submitted that the same does not disclose commission of any misconduct by the petitioner in the matter. Accordingly, it was submitted that the very initiation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, was not warranted. 6. Mr. Borbora has further submitted that the materials coming on record in the matter had clearly highlighted that the irregularities in the maintenance of the ABSD accounts was on account of the default committed by the agents of the Bank and they had also, in writing, admitted to the said position. Mr. Borbora submits that the agents of the Bank were not under control of the petitioner, but were under direct control of the Page No.# 6/18 Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch of the Bank. Mr. Borbora by referring to the proceeding instituted against the Branch Manager Sri Bhupendra Goswami has submitted that the allegations levelled against him were established in the departmental proceeding held in his case, which would go to reveal that the petitioner, herein, was in no way responsible of the irregularities as occasioning in the maintenance of the ABSD accounts of the Branch, in question. 7. Mr. Borbora by referring to the Enquiry Report has submitted that the said enquiry was initiated on 20-12-2016 and was concluded on the same day. Mr. Borbora has submitted that in the enquiry held, the Presenting Officer had placed before the Enquiry Officer the charges framed against the petitioner and the documents basing on which the same were to be established by the Bank. Mr. Borbora submits that no witnesses were examined in the enquiry and he contended that the documents relied upon by the respondent Bank was admittedly not proved in the enquiry. Mr. Borbora submits that in the enquiry only submissions made before the Enquiry Officer and the documents produced by the Presenting Officer were taken on record. He submits that the petitioner’s statement with regard to the charges framed against came also to be recorded. 8. Mr. Borbora, submits that the manner in which the documents were received in the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, would go to reveal that the contents of such documents were not proved, inasmuch as, the said documents were not so produced in the enquiry through any witness. He submits that the documents as produced by the Presenting Officer in the enquiry cannot be deemed to be legal evidence. Accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in his report cannot be deemed to have been so Page No.# 7/18 reached basing on legal evidence and submits that the conclusions so drawn by the Enquiry Officer to be of no consequence. He further submits that basing on such vitiated Enquiry Report, no penalty was permissible to be imposed upon the petitioner. 9. Mr. Borbora by referring to the affidavit filed by the respondent Bank in the matter, submitted that, after the submission of the Enquiry Report, the Board of Directors had directed for a de-novo enquiry to be conducted in the matter with regard to the departmental proceeding initiated against Sri Bhupendra Goswami the then Branch Manager of Sualkuchi Branch. He submits that after receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer conducting the said de-novo enquiry, the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, also reckoning the said report, had proceeded to draw a conclusion that all the 05 (five) employees involved in the matter, against whom the departmental proceedings were initiated, were guilty of committing serious financial irregularities in respect of the ABSD accounts of the Sualkuchi Branch of the Bank and accordingly, a decision was arrived at, to effect recovery of each of the involved officials, including the petitioner, herein. Mr. Borbora submits that such decision of Board of Directors also being based on the de-novo enquiry conducted in the matter against the Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch, the petitioner not having been involved in the said de-novo enquiry, the same could not have been also applied in case of the petitioner, herein. He submits that in addition to the irregularities committed by the authorities in conducing enquiry against the petitioner, herein, the consideration of the de-novo Enquiry Report by the Board of Directors, which admittedly was held only against one of the delinquent, i.e. Sri Bhupendra Goswami, who was the Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch of the Page No.# 8/18 respondent No. 1/ Bank at the relevant point of time also goes to vitiate the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, herein. 10. In the above premises, Mr. Borbora submits that the impugned order of penalty dated 06-11-2020, imposing penalty of recovery upon the petitioner would mandate an interference by this Court. 11. Mr. Borbora has further submitted that the petitioner, during the pendency of the proceeding, was considered for promotion to the next higher grade. However, in view of the penalty of recovery as imposed upon him, the said order of promotion has not been extended to him. Mr. Borbora submitted that the petitioner is slated to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31-12-2025. Accordingly, he submits that in the event this Court is of the view that the impugned order of recovery dated 06-11-2020, would mandate interference, this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extend to the petitioner his due promotion to the next higher post, w.e.f. the date he was so eligible to be promoted. 12. Per contra, Mr. I. Borthakur and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the materials having came to record with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the irregularities committed in the maintenance of the ABSD accounts operated in the Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent No. 1/ Bank, a departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, by way of issuance of a show-cause notice dated 16-03-2016. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the charges framed against the petitioner primarily related to commission of breach of rules, ignoring the laid down procedures in the various circulars/ Page No.# 9/18 guidelines issued by the respondent No. 1/ Bank for maintenance of the ABSD accounts, non-balancing of the ABSD accounts regularly, wrongly drawing of balancing registers, submitting false statements of balancing of accounts, replacing of torn ledger folio numbers and authentication thereof. It is submitted that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is of acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Bank, for which the Bank had to suffer financial loss to the tune of Rs. 26,19,820/- (Twenty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty). 13. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the Enquiry Officer on examining the materials placed before him during the enquiry proceeding, had drawn the conclusion to the effect that the charges levelled against the petitioner were partially established. The Enquiry Officer basing on the materials coming in record of the enquiry had also recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner as supervisory officer had not performed his duties properly. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was furnished with copy of the Enquiry Report and his response thereon was also received in the matter. Accordingly, it is submitted that the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner was conducted by complying the principles of Natural Justice 14. It was further submitted that the matter, on being placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, the Board of Directors also taking into account the findings as coming on record with regard to 04 (four) other officials of the Bank against whom the departmental proceedings were also instituted basing on similar allegations, proceeded to conclude that all the 05 (five) officials, including the petitioner, Page No.# 10/18 herein, were equally responsible for the irregularities as occasioning in the ABSD accounts of the Sualkuchi Branch of the respondent No. 1/ Bank. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Board of Directors, after detailed consideration proceeded to direct imposition of the penalty of recovery of the amount quantified as the loss occasioning to the Bank in the matter proportionately from each of the 05 (five) officers involved in the matter, including the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 5,23,964/- (Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Four) being the 1/5th share of the pecuniary loss occasioning to the Bank in the matter. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that a de-novo enquiry was directed to be conducted with regard to the enquiry conducted against Sri Bhupendra Goswami, Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch of the Bank, at the relevant point of time, and the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 03-09-2020, had also while considering the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon the officials against whom the proceedings were so instituted, also had considered de-novo enquiry report submitted in the matter and the de-novo Enquiry Report having also brought on record, the facts that all the 05 (five) charge-sheeted employees were equally responsible for the irregularities committed in the ABSD accounts of the Sualkuchi Branch, the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 1/ Bank, arrived at a decision to recover the pecuniary loss occasioning to the Bank, in equal proportion from the each of the 05 (five) officials involved. 16. In the above premises, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner being proportionate to the allegations levelled against him and proved in the enquiry held, would not mandate an interference from this Page No.# 11/18 Court. In support of the submission made by them in the matter the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/ Bank had also furnished to this Court the original records of the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner, in the matter. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 18. The facts, as noticed hereinabove, is not disputed. A departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of show-cause notice dated 16-03-2016 and therein 04 (four) Article of Charges came to be framed against him. A perusal of the contents of the show-cause notice dated 16-03-2016, would go to reveal that the Article of Charges so framed against the petitioner is based on the irregularities coming to the notice of the authorities with regard to the maintenance of the ABSD Accounts at Sualkuchi Branch. The petitioner had on receipt of said show-cause notice, submitted his reply thereto and denied the charges so framed against him and had also brought on record his clarifications thereto. Being not satisfied with the clarification as set out by the petitioner in the show-cause reply, the competent authority had directed for holding of an enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer came to be appointed. 19. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his Enquiry Report and therein had concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner, to have been partially established. The petitioner on being furnished with the copy of the said Enquiry Report had submitted his representation, thereon. Page No.# 12/18 20. Thereafter, the matter on being placed before the Board of Directors of the Bank, as noticed hereinabove, a penalty of recovery of Rs. 5,23,964/- (Five Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty Four) came to be issued in respect of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 06-11-2020. As noticed hereinabove, the prayers of the petitioner for review of the penalty imposed upon him, also came to be rejected. 21. It is a settled position of law that a disciplinary proceeding being a quasi judicial one; the principles of natural justice, is required to be complied with. This Court while exercising the power of judicial review, is entitled to consider as to whether the authorities while inferring commission of a misconduct on the part of the delinquent officer, had so done, by taking into consideration, relevant evidence and by excluding, irrelevant facts. The inference of misconduct against a delinquent by the disciplinary authority, must be so based on the legal evidence coming on record in the inquiry and such evidence must have been so taken on record in the inquiry by complying with the principles of natural justice. 22. For the purpose of appreciating the rival contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties to the present proceeding, this Court has perused the records of the departmental proceeding furnished by the learned counsel for the respondents. 23. The records contain the proceeding of the enquiry held in pursuance to the show- cause notice dated 16-03-2016, against the petitioner, herein. A perusal of the enquiry proceeding reveals that the same was initiated on 20-12-2016 and was concluded on the same day. The Enquiry Officer for the purpose of the enquiry had formulated a procedure wherein the Presenting Officer was to place the charges framed against the petitioner in Page No.# 13/18 the show-cause notice dated 16-03-2016 and thereafter, required the Presenting Officer to submit his explanation in the matter along with production of documents relied upon for the purpose, with regard to each of the charges so framed against him. Thereafter, a clarification of the petitioner in the matter was taken. In terms of the said procedure as formulated in the matter, the enquiry proceeding was held and concluded. It is reiterated that from a perusal of the enquiry proceeding, this Court finds that only the Enquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer and the petitioner had participated therein. 24. Basing on the enquiry proceeding, i.e. primarily on the clarifications set out by the Presenting Officer and the petitioner, herein, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to submit his enquiry report in the matter and therein held the charges levelled against the petitioner to be partially proved. The above being the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry proceeding, held against the petitioner, in the matter, it is to be seen as to whether the materials which have come on record in the enquiry can be considered to be materials brought on record in a manner known to law and further, as to whether such materials can then be considered as legal evidence, which can be acted upon. 25. It is a settled position of law that the provision of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not strictly applicable to the departmental enquiries, which are not judicial proceeding, nevertheless the principles following there-from can be applied in specific cases. It is further settled position of law that the documents produced before the Enquiry Officer must be so produced through the examination of a witness, inasmuch as, the mere production of a document in the enquiry would not by itself also proved the contents thereof. The contents of a document can be proved only through the evidence of the Page No.# 14/18 witness producing the said documents. The said process is also mandated, inasmuch as, the delinquent would then have an opportunity to cross-examine such witness and thereby dispute the projection made with regard to the document in question. An Enquiry Officer, acts as a quasi judicial authority and is in a position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/ disciplinary authority. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department. The Enquiry Officer can act only upon the legal evidence adduced in the enquiry. 26. As noticed hereinabove, in the enquiry held against the petitioner, the document relied upon against the petitioner, were not produced through any witness. Accordingly, in the enquiry, considering the manner in which, it was so held, the clarifications placed by the Presenting Officer and noted by the Enquiry Officer cannot in any manner be construed to be legal evidence coming on record with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice in question. Accordingly, it can be safely held that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report was not so drawn basing on legal evidence. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent never had any opportunity at any stage to offer any explanation in the matter with regard to the materials relied against him in the enquiry. Having noticed the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that it can be safely concluded that in the enquiry held against the petitioner in pursuance to the show-cause notice dated 16-03- 2016, no witness having been examined in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner and the contents of the documents relied upon having not been proved, no Page No.# 15/18 legal evidence had come on record which would have permitted the Enquiry Officer to draw a conclusion in the matter against the petitioner, herein, with regard to the each of the charges framed against the him in the show-cause notice in question. 27. The above being the position, with regard to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, this Court holds that the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Report being so drawn dehors any legal evidence, the same is of no consequence and no action thereon is permissible to be taken against the petitioner, herein, including imposition of any penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the decision of the Board of Directors as arrived in its meeting held on 03-09- 2020 to impose penalty of recovery from the petitioner, herein, for the purported pecuniary loss suffered by the Bank would mandate an interference, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the order dated 06-11-2020 would also mandate an interference from this Court. 28. Having drawn the above conclusion, this Court also notices that the categorical stand of the respondent authorities that upon submission of the Enquiry Report in the matter by the Enquiry Officer on 20-12-2016, the issue was again considered by the Board of Directors, in its meeting held on 29-07-2017 and 17-02-2018. The Board of Directors, thereafter, by noticing the report as submitted in the matter in pursuance to the de-novo enquiry directed to be so conducted in respect of the departmental proceeding instituted against the then Branch Manager of the Sualkuchi Branch, i.e. Sri Bhupendra Goswami had in its meeting held on 03-09-2020 decided that all the 05 charge-sheeted officials of the Bank were equally responsible for the irregularities of the ABSD accounts Page No.# 16/18 of the Branch, in question. Accordingly, the decision was arrived at to inflict punishment to make recovery from each of the officials involved, including the petitioner towards the pecuniary loss as ascertained in the matter, in equal proportion. While the said decision was arrived at, it is to be noted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to participate in any of such de-novo enquiry conducted in the matter. Further, in the Enquiry Report dated 20-12-2016 submitted by the Enquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceeding instituted against the petitioner, there was no quantification of loss occasioning to the Bank on account of the steps purportedly taken in the matter by the petitioner, herein. Such quantification, it is seen has occasioned only when the de-novo Enquiry Report. Accordingly, on the said count also the petitioner not having been given due opportunity to defend his matter and the Board of Directors also having considered the de-novo Enquiry Report without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to participate in such de-novo enquiry, the decision to recover the pecuniary loss occasioning to the Bank from the petitioner also stands vitiated. 29. In view of the conclusion reached, hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the decision of the Board of Directors, as arrived at in its meeting held on 03- 09-2020, for affecting recovery from amongst others, the petitioner would not mandate acceptance and accordingly, the same insofar as it concerns the petitioner, herein, stands set aside. Consequently, the order dated 06-11-2020 issued by the respondent No. 2, communicating the said decision to the petitioner, herein, along with the communication dated 03-05-2021 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for review of the decision to make affect recovery in his case shall also stands set aside. Page No.# 17/18 30. Having interfered with the impugned order of penalty dated 06-11-2020, this Court in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal Arora Vs PSEB, reported in 2006 13 SCC 593, which lays down that once final order goes all the orders from the date of charge-sheet upto the date of passing of final order become a nullity and redundant, the penalty order having been interfered with, the Enquiry Report dated 20-12-2016 along with the show-cause notice dated 16-03-2016 also stand interfered with [also refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Violet Baruah Vs. UoI, (2017) 2 GLR 804]. 31. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the next higher grade. However, on account of pendency of the Departmental Proceeding and the penalty imposed upon him, in pursuance thereof, he was not issued with any order of promotion. This Court having interfered with the Departmental Proceeding instituted against the petitioner, the bar existing in promoting the petitioner to the next higher grade, no longer exists. Accordingly, the petitioner who is projected to superannuated from his service w.e.f. 31-12-2025 is held to be entitled to be promoted in the event he was so considered and found eligible for such promotion during pendency of the proceeding against him. It is provided that the petitioner shall submit a representation before the respondent No. 2 praying for his promotion to the next higher grade, with retrospective effect and therein set out all requisite particulars about the promotion exercise so carried out in his case earlier. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent No. 2 shall consider the same and after receiving approval from the Board of Directors of the Bank pass a speaking order in the matter within a period of 30 (thirty) Page No.# 18/18 days from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioner, herein. In the event, the petitioner is found to be entitled to be promoted with retrospective effect, necessary order be issued in the matter, including release of the arrear of pay that would now become available to the petitioner on being granted promotion with retrospective effect to the next higher grade. 32. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 33. The original records produced by the learned counsel for the respondents be returned back forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant