The petitioner currently working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police seeks a direction for his promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police from the date his juniors were given the promotion.

2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 it is stated that the petitioner figured at sl. no. 1044(k) of the State Gradation List of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. It is further stated that the petitioner's case for promotion was considered along with other officers both senior and junior to him by the Central Selection Board held in 1994. The petitioner was not found fit for promotion due to unsatisfactory service record. In the same Board officers junior to him were found fit for promotion and were accordingly granted promotion in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police. It further comes to light from the counter affidavit and then a supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that the main reason for finding the petitioner's service record as unsatisfactory and holding him unfit for promotion was a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in the year 1988.

3. This takes us to examine the disciplinary proceeding no. 38/88 and t