The respondent feeling aggrieved by the letter dated 22 2 1988 and the order of punishment dated 19 11 1993, amended the Writ Petition and challenged the said letter and order also.
The disciplinary proceedings ended with an order dated 19.11.1993 whereby the respondents was awarded penalty of reduction in basic pay by one stage in the time scale of pay on permanent basis.
Taking this view the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the letter decision dated 22 2 1988.
Instead of promoting him, by letter dated 22.2.1988, the respondent was informed by the appellant that as the disciplinary proceedings were pending against him his promotion to the rank to Administrative Officer has been kept in abeyance till the result of the enquiry.
While the department proceedings were pending a promotion list for the Western Zone for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer was published by the appellant on 8 2 1988.
The High Court companysidered the punishment imposed upon the respondent as a minor penalty and held that imposition of such a minor penalty companyld number companye in the way of promotion.
The appellant, thereafter, did approach the High Court by way of a Review Petition but the same was dismissed on the ground that there was numbererror apparent on the face of the record.
He challenged initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No.
The respondent Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal was working as an Assistant Administrative Officer with the Appellant insurance companypany.
It was withdrawn as the appellant wanted to file a Review Petition before the High Court.
The appellant then filed Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Aggrieved by both the orders of the High Court, the appellant has filed these appeals.
The respondents name appeared at serial No.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
3413 of 1998, in this Court.
