Promotion can be withheld in cases of alleged misconduct, even if the misconduct occurred after the selection, to maintain the required standard of discipline and integrity.

( 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, the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable. No absolute legal proposition can be laid down that if misconduct is alleged to be committed subsequent to a selection then that misconduct cannot be the basis for withholding the promotion. Take for an example of a case where an employee is selected for promotion, but he commits murder before he could get appointment/promotion order. In our opinion in such cases the appointment/promotion can certainly be held up until the person is cleared of the charge.

( 3 ) IN the present case the petitioner is an officer in bank where the highest standard of discipline and integrity has to be maintained. Even though the allegation of embezzlement is subsequent to the meeting of the selection committee, in our opinion, the petitioners promotion must be held up until he is cleared of that charge.

( 4 ) IN the circumstances of the case we dispose of this petition with the direction to the authority concerned that the enquiry against the petitioner must be completed preferably within two months of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned in accordance with law. If the petitioner is exonerated in the enquiry he may be promoted. The petitioner will co-operate in the enquiry.

.