his explanation within one week from the date of receipt of the said memo. The petitioner offered his explanation on 19.07.2000. While forwarding his explanation to the District Manager, the Assistant Manager recommended that a lenient view may be taken for the dropping of the memo. Be that it may, no immediate action appeared to have taken. In the meanwhile, as per proceedings DO No.286/2000/Estt.-I dated 25.08.2000, the Assistant Manager (EI) for Zonal Manager (S) issued an Office Order, promoting 151 selection Grade/Assistant Grade—II (Technical) staff to the post of Assistant Grade—I (Technical) in the IDA scale. The petitioner’s name was mentioned at Sl.No.47 in the list. It is no doubt in the aforesaid order it was mentioned that the promotions are subject to regional vigilance clearance and without prejudice to the claims of the officers/officials who may be seniors to them and will take effect from the date of reporting to duty in the place of posting. However, petitioner is concerned, the vigilance clearance cannot be deemed to be a hurdle because no charge memo was framed or served on him by the date of promotion i.e. 25.08.2000. The charge memo dated 26.08.2000 was issued only subsequently. Therefore, for all practical purposes his promotion can be said to be taken effect from 25.08.2000. The subsequent charge memo which no doubt culminated into minor penalty cannot be pressed into service retrospectively to withhold the promotion given on 25.08.2000. Therefore, the contention of respondent authorities that since the petitioner was facing charges his promotion was withheld cannot be accepted.
