Even when the respondent was relieved from the office at District Bhind on July 06, 2006, not only he did not join the duties at Sagar, it is more than one month thereafter, i.e. on August 14, 2006, he gave the representation. Further, he returned the promotion order, in original. It is clear that he wanted to remain in District Bhind, where he had continued since 1990, as he was ready to go on leave instead of joining the place of transfer. Moreover, for more than two years from the date of cancellation of the order of promotion, the respondent kept totally mum and maintained stoic silence. There was not even a semblance of protest as to why his promotion order was cancelled or that he wanted to join the promotion post after the alleged inquiry into the so-called complaint was over. He filed the writ petition on October 24, 2008, i.e. almost two years after cancellation of his promotion order. So much so, even before filing of the writ petition, he did not make any representation of any nature whatsoever. It would also be interesting to note that in his writ petition, the respondent alleged that he was orally told that some departmental inquiry is pending against him and, therefore, his promotion order had been cancelled, but no departmental inquiry was ever started against him. This is clearly an afterthought plea. In the first instance, if that is the reason for cancellation of promotion order, it was not at all necessary for him to wait for departmental inquiry to either start or finish, inasmuch as, when he was not served with any charge sheet, there was no question of withholding his promotion, which was the position in law, as laid down in K.V. Janakiraman (supra). Furthermore, this was not the reason stated in the cancellation order. The appellants, in their counter affidavit, had specifically pleaded that there was no departmental inquiry pending and that was not the reason for cancellation of the promotion order and, in fact, it was cancelled as the respondent had refused to accept the promotion order by making representation dated August 14, 2006. As mentioned above, it is this aspect which was to be necessarily looked into, which has not been examined by the High Court.