1. By Ext. P-5 memo, dated 19th August 1980 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) administered a warning to the petitioner. It was also directed that the memo should be kept in the confidential records of the petitioner. As a consequence, when the Departmental Promotion Committee met a few days later to consider promotions to the cadre of Income Tax Inspector, the petitioner was held to be unsuitable. It is common ground that but for Ext. P-5 the Departmental Promotion Committee would have favourably considered the petitioner's case. The only question therefore is whether an order like Ext. P-5 could have validly endangered the petitioner's chances of promotion.

2. A warning is not a punishment under the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. One of the punishments that could be imposed under the Rules is the withholding of promotion. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the warning in Ext. P-5 has been used as a ground for withholding his promotion, i. e. for infliction of a penalty, without even following the procedural requirements of the rules. As has been noticed by the Department itself in Ext. P-13, the Delhi High Court has taken the view that a recorded