ORDER

1. The respondent, even though he has been duly served, has not appeared.

2. Leave granted.

3. Since in the notice that was issued to the respondent it was indicated that the matter would be finally disposed of at the notice stage, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on this appeal.

4. This appeal arises out of a writ petition (OJC No. 4179 of 1990) filed by the respondent in the High Court of Orissa. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under.

5. The respondent was employed in the Junior Management Grade Scale 1 with the appellant-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and on 12-5-1987 the disciplinary authority imposed upon the respondent the penalty of reduction of basic pay by three stages. Although the appellate authority, by order dated 23-7-1989, modified the order of punishment by imposing reduction of basic pay by one stage only but the reviewing authority, by order dated 29-3-1990, set aside the said order passed by the appellate authority and restored the punishment that was imposed by the disciplinary authority, namely, reduction of basic pay by three stages. The said punishment was operative till 12-5-1990. In the meanwhile, promotions were made to Middle Management Grade Scale II (hereinafter referred to as MMGS-II) with effect from 1-8-1986. The respondent was not considered for such promotion in view of the debarment policy that is followed by the appellant-Bank in the matter of promotions. In relation to the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in a time scale the said policy prescribes :

"1. Reduction to a lower stage in a time scale. - The officer is not eligible for consideration for promotion till the rigour period is over i.e. till the pay is restored to the level before the punishment."

6. In the writ petition, the respondent challenged the legality of the order of punishment inflicted upon him in the disciplinary proceedings as well as the non-consideration of his case for promotion to MMGS-II with effect from 1-8-1986. From the judgment of the High Court, it appears that during the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the respondent did not assail the legality of the order of punishment which was inflicted upon him. The High Court has also observed that it was done so rightly. The only question which, therefore, remained to be considered by the High Court was whether the respondent had been rightly excluded from consideration for promotion to MMGS-II during the period the punishment imposed on him was operative. The High Court has held that the non-consideration of the respondent for promotion to MMGS-II during the period the punishment was operative has resulted in violation of the right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the High Court, the impugned order of punishment passed against the respondent in the disciplinary proceedings did not in any way disentitle him from being considered for promotion to MMGS-II with effect from 1-8-1986 if he was otherwise eligible for being considered. The High Court has directed the appellants to consider the respondents case for promotion with effect from 1-8-1986 to MMGS-II and if he is found suitable in accordance with law, then promote him with effect from the date he was found suitable. Feeling aggrieved by the said directions of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal.

7. The only question which requires consideration is whether in pursuance of the debarment policy laid down by the appellant-Bank, the respondent has been rightly excluded from consideration for promotion on account of the penalty of reduction of pay being operative when such promotion came up for consideration. This question has been considered by this Court in Union of India v. K. Krishnan [1992 Supp (3) SCC 50 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 995 : (1992) 21 ATC 842]. In that case the punishment of withholding of increment in salary for a period of one year and six months