1. In these writ petitions, the vexed question, whether petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings against them, that visits this court more often than any other issue, falls for consideration. As the core issue is common in all these writ petitions they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Ordinarily, an employee is entitled to be considered for promotion as per his seniority. If promotion is based on seniority, as a matter of course, senior should be granted promotion unless he is otherwise declared as unfit to be promoted. If promotion to the next cadre is based on selection, employee is entitled to be considered as per seniority along with all other eligible candidates by Departmental Promotion Committee and if Promotion Committee recommends, he is entitled to be promoted.

3. In service matters, one of the biggest contributors to litigation and occupying huge legal space is disputes relating to claim for promotion by employee as against employers desire to differ promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary action/criminal action.

4. The substratum of litigation is competing claims of employee and employer. Employee wants promotion when due notwithstanding alleged misconduct, criminal or departmental and employers desire to at least deny elevation in status to employee when he is facing disciplinary action/criminal action, more particularly on grave allegations. Broadly, there are four categories of cases, (i) contemplated disciplinary proceedings; (ii) no formal charge-sheet is drawn/drawn but not served in disciplinary proceedings/no charge-sheet is filed in criminal proceedings; (iii) not concluding the pending disciplinary proceedings/ criminal proceedings for a long time and denying promotion and (iv) dropping of disciplinary action/clearing of disciplinary proceedings/acquittal in criminal proceedings which was the basis for earlier deferment.

5. There is plethora of precedents on the substratum of the litigation. It is expedient to discuss some of the leading decisions on the subject in seriatim of the decisions.

6.1 State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh was an appeal against decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in two OAs filed by Bani Singh. In one OA, he challenged adverse entries in service record and sought retrospective promotion and in another OA, he challenged initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay. Both OAs were allowed. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of Tribunal. Supreme Court observed as under:

4.......If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.

6.......Normally, pendency or contemplated initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a candidate must be considered to have absolutely no impact upon his right to be considered. If the departmental enquiry had reached the stage of framing of charges after a prima facie case has been made out, the normal procedure followed as mentioned by the Tribunal was sealed cover procedure but if the disciplinary proceedings had not reached that stage of framing of the charge after prima facie case is established the consideration for the promotion to a higher or selection grade cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of such disciplinary proceedings. Deferring the consideration in the Screening Committee meeting held on November 26, 1980 on this ground was therefore insupportable. In fact, even in respect of the adverse remarks which has been now quashed the respondent officer had made his own representation and t