R1(g). Of course, a reading of Ext R1(g) would show that the personnel, whose names are mentioned in the order, were found fit for financial up-gradation under the MACP scheme with effect from the dates shown against their names. The petitioner's name figures at serial No.15 in Ext R1(g). The question to be considered is as to whether Ext R1(g) by itself would confer the benefit of financial up-gradation to the petitioner or whether a separate order is required to implement Ext R1(g). It is not in dispute that after the petitioner was found eligible for MACP as per Ext R1(g) dated 5.3.2015, he was imposed with penalty, on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, vide Ext P3 dated 7.9.2014. Imposition of punishment was prior to implementation of Ext R1(g), with respect to the petitioner. It was in those circumstances that clarification was sought from the DOS Head Quarter, Bangalore Vide letter dated 15.12.2014 clarification was issued to the following effect. In Annexure-I (paragraph 18) of DOP&T Office Memorandum No. 35034/3/2008-Estt(D) dated 19.5.2009, it is mentioned that in the matter of disciplinary/penalty proceedings, grant of benefit under the MACPs shall be subject to rules governing normal promotion. Such cases shall therefore be regulated
