( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has claimed that he has been selected for promotion from officer scale 1 to officer scale 2 in the respondent bank. It appears that subsequently a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner making allegation of embezzlement of Rs. 1,22,000. 00. In our opinion, until and unless the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry there is no question of his promotion particularly, when the petitioner is an officer in a bank where the highest degree of discipline and integrity is required to be maintained in order to maintain public confidence in the bank.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection committee held its meeting prior to the memorandum which has been issued to the petitioner and he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sudha Salhan, AIR 1998 SC 1094 : 1998 (3) SCC 394 : 1998-II-LLJ-241, copy of which is Annexure 17 to the petition. On the strength of this decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners name could not have been kept in sealed cover as the memorandum was given subsequent to the D. P. C. In our opinion, th