ORDER : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. 1. Facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is working as a Head Constable in the respondent Department. In the year 2024, the Departmental Promotion Committee initiated promotion proceedings for promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub-Inspector. Name of the petitioner was also considered in the said promotion proceedings. However, when merit list of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector was published on 17.04.2024, petitioner’s name was not recommended for promotion on the ground that an inquiry by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is stated to be pending against him. Pursuant to recommendation of eligible candidate for promotion, order dated 21.10.2024 was issued promoting other Head Constables to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, excluding name of petitioner. Aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the list of promoted persons, petitioner submitted representation to the concerned authority. However, as no favourable response was received, he approached this Court by filing present writ petition seeking following reliefs: “1. Kindly call for the entire records of the present matter. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and include the petitioner's name in the promotion list and grant him promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. 3. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing any order or decision that arbitrarily excludes the petitioner from the promotion process. 4. Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any further adverse action against the petitioner without due process of law. 5. Grant any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner successfully cleared departmental examination for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) and also completed requisite training as prescribed under the relevant rules. While the petitioner was otherwise fully eligible for promotion, he was called upon to appear before the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, in connection with Mahadev App investigation, only for the purpose of making oral inquiry, consequent upon which, he was placed under suspension by the respondent- Department on the ground of an ongoing investigation against him. A preliminary enquiry proceeding was also instituted by the competent authority. A preliminary enquiry proceeding was also instituted by the competent authority. Subsequently, competent authority after being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, enquiry was closed. His suspension was revoked. The period of suspension from 06.02.2024 to 21.03.2024 was also duly regularized, thereby restoring the service record of the petitioner without any adverse consequence. Despite the above, when the merit list for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector for the year 2024 was issued, name of the petitioner was not included. He draws attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the covering memo, particularly the charge sheet, to submit that the petitioner is not named as an accused in any criminal case or FIR. Merely being called by the E.D. for inquiry in connection with some registered offence, without there being any allegation or accusation against the petitioner, it cannot be construed as involvement in any offence so as to deny him his legitimate promotional benefits. Referring to Clause 11 of the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Constable to Head Constable and Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector) Promotion Standard Operating Procedure, 2021, he submits that in the event an employee facing departmental proceedings is exonerated, he shall be entitled to promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted, with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that while considering candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, it was found that an EOW (Economic Offence Wing) inquiry is pending against the petitioner in connection with his involvement in some offence, therefore he was not considered for promotion. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 5. Admittedly, petitioner is working as Head Constable in the respondent department. It is case of petitioner that while working on the post of Head Constable, he appeared for some inquiry before ED, Regional Officer, Raipur on 27.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 in connection with Mahadev App Investigation. Because of ongoing investigation and proceedings he was suspended with immediate effect and a preliminary enquiry is conducted against him. It is case of petitioner that while working on the post of Head Constable, he appeared for some inquiry before ED, Regional Officer, Raipur on 27.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 in connection with Mahadev App Investigation. Because of ongoing investigation and proceedings he was suspended with immediate effect and a preliminary enquiry is conducted against him. Inquiry report is submitted before the authority and vide order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) after considering enquiry report, preliminary enquiry initiated against petitioner was closed, holding that petitioner after informing his superior authority and after obtaining permission appeared before the ED, only to give his oral statement. His suspension period from 06.02.2024 to 21.03.2024 was also regularized in service. However, at the time of issuing list of candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, his name was not included for the reason that some inquiry in criminal case is pending against him. 6. Promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector is governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Constable to Head Constable and Head Constable to Assistant Sub Inspector) Promotion Standard Operating Procedure, 2021 (for short “SOP 2021”) filed as Annexure P-5 of the writ petition. Clause 11 of the SOP 2021 provides for Departmental Enquiry/Criminal Case which reads as under : 7. Sub-clause (1) of Clause 11 very specifically provides that employees against whom departmental enquiry, criminal case pending, is under suspension, Promotion Committee's recommendation will be placed in a sealed envelope in the prescribed format. If, in the departmental inquiry or criminal case, the employee is found completely innocent and without any blame, he or she will be considered suitable or unsuitable for promotion, based on the Departmental Promotion Committee's recommendation. An employee promoted in such a situation will receive all the benefits of promotion from the same date as the promotion of his or her junior. 8. In the case at hand, petitioner was suspended by the respondent - department alleging that he is involved in some criminal case for which he was called for inquiry by the investigating agency i.e. ED. 9. 8. In the case at hand, petitioner was suspended by the respondent - department alleging that he is involved in some criminal case for which he was called for inquiry by the investigating agency i.e. ED. 9. It is the stand taken by the respondent -State in its return that as in the communication made by the EOW with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanker affirming the pendency of Inquiry against the petitioner and further that said matter has now been transferred to CBI, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to be promoted. However, from the documents filed along with the covering memo, particularly the charge sheet and FIR, which are not disputed by learned counsel for the State, it is clearly appearing that petitioner is not named as an accused in any criminal case or FIR. Merely being called by the investigating agency (EOW) for inquiry in connection with some registered offence, without there being any allegation or accusation against the petitioner, it cannot be construed as his involvement in any offence so as to deny him his legitimate promotional benefits. It is a settled principle that mere pendency of an inquiry or calling an employee for investigation, without there being any charge, accusation or finding of guilt, cannot be a ground to deny promotion. 10.In the present case, not only petitioner’s suspension was revoked and period is regularized, but the preliminary enquiry directed against petitioner was closed. The action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion, in above facts of case, is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the governing policy i.e. SOP 2021. Such an approach would amount to punishing an employee without any finding of misconduct, which is impermissible in law. 11. Under SOP No. 25/2021, dated 06.08.2021 on proceeding of promotion of Head Constable to the Post of Sub Inspector, clause 11 deals with departmental enquiry/criminal case. It clearly provides that the employees against whom departmental enquiry or criminal case is pending or is under suspension then the recommendation of the Committee shall be kept in sealed cover under prescribed format and if after conclusion of departmental enquiry proceeding or criminal case, the employee is exonerated or held to be not guilty then he will be held to be suitable or not-suitable for promotion. Under Sub-clause 2 of Clause 11 it further provides that if the employee is promoted after opening sealed cover, he will be placed in appropriate place in gradation and will be given benefit of fixation of salary without back wages. 12.In the case at hand, respondents-State had not made any pleading that name of petitioner has been kept in sealed cover even though there is specific pleading that petitioner’s name was considered along with other eligible candidate for promotion . State in their reply have only pleaded that name of petitioner was considered but in view of EOW enquiry pending against petitioner he was not given said promotion. It is not a case of respondent-State that FIR is registered against the petitioner for commission of any offence, charge sheet is filed pursuant to criminal case registered against him or any departmental enquiry is pending . 13. On the date on which name of eligible Head Constables were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the higher post i.e. ASI, petitioner was neither under suspension nor has any departmental enquiry proceedings was pending against him. His name, if he is found meritorious and suitable, has to be brought in the list of recommended candidates for promotion. The employee can be denied promotion only if on the date of consideration of his name for promotion, departmental enquiry proceedings initiated was pending conclusion, final orders had not been passed by the appropriate authority, or any crime is registered against him. No material is brought on record by the respondents- State in this regard. 14. In the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “promotion is not fundamental right . Right to be considered for promotion, however, is a fundamental right. Such a right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful consideration. Suitability or otherwise of the candidate concerned, however,must be left at the hands of DPC, but the same has to be determined in terms of rule applicable”. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Arvind Rai & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 579 , citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209 , observed thus: “41. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Shukla & Ors. Vs. Arvind Rai & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 579 , citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs. Pravat Kiran Mohanty (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209 , observed thus: “41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v.Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: “4………..There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent- writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.” 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab , laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27 : “Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16(1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1) * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.12, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta right from 1950.” 16. In celebrated case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109 , three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus: “16. In celebrated case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 109 , three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus: “16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge- sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many-cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge sheet.”………………. 17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion no. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.” 17. Recently in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Doly Loyi (2024) SCC OnLine SCC 2613 Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “20 . Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.” 17. Recently in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Doly Loyi (2024) SCC OnLine SCC 2613 Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “20 . The core issue for consideration before this Court is: "Whether by the mere grant of prosecution sanction, it could be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge is pending against the respondent Government Servant and whether grant of sanction for prosecution could be a valid ground for putting the DPC recommendations in a sealed cover"? 21 . On a bare perusal of OM dated 14th September, 1992, which covers the issue, it is clear that it prescribes the conditions under which the assessment done by the DPC is to be kept in the sealed cover. According to this OM, the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to in respect of three categories of Government servants i e Government servants under suspension, Government servants in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending, and Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending. 18. In the aforementioned decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court placing reliance in its earlier decision in case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) has further held as under: “24. Considering the above position, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.” 19. For the foregoing discussions and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. 20. For the foregoing discussions and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. 20. Respondents are directed to constitute review DPC for consideration of candidature of petitioner for promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and if there is no other impediment or bar in promoting petitioner, he shall be promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector from the date when his juniors have been promoted on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector with fixation of his seniority at appropriate place and fixation of salary notionally. However, if petitioner is promoted from the date when his juniors are promoted he will not be entitled for arrears of salary.