(1) THIS is an appeal filed by the Collector of District, the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu. There are five respondents in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that we are not concerned with the 5th respondent. The order which we propose to pass will therefore apply to respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

(2) THE writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 in the High Court of Madras the same being transferred to the Administrative Tribunal of Tamil Nadu. The writ petitioners were working as Assistants. The question of their promotion as Deputy Tahsildars was in issue before the Tribunal. The list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982 was drawn by the Collector Thanjavur on 7.2.1983 and the said list did not contain the names of the writ petitioners (respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal). Their names were omitted on the ground that minor punishment was imposed on them consequent to disciplinary enquiry. The punishment which was inflicted on them was stoppage of increments. At the time of considering the cases of the above four Assistants, the Collector excluded their names in the list of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982. Their names were omitted on the ground that punishments were imposed against them during the anterior period.

(3) THE respondents questioned the non-inclusion of their names in the panel before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed their petition and issued a direction that the case of the writ petitioners for inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars should be considered uninfluenced by the minor punishment inflicted on them and that if by such consideration they were found fit for inclusion in the list, suitable place be allotted to them in the list of seniority for the cadre. Against the above said direction this appeal has been preferred by the Collector, Thanjavur and Special Commissioner.

(4) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that the non-inclusion of the respondents (writ petitioners) in the above select list of Deputy Tahsildars would amount to a second punishment on them. The Tribunal felt that minor punishments could not be taken into consideration while considering their case for inclusion in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars for the year 1982. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this view of the Tribunal is incorrect in view of the decision of this Court in Union of Indian & Ors. v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors.

(5) THE respondents have been served notice but they have not chosen to appear personally or through counsel. We are, therefore, compelled to dispose of this appeal treating them as ex-parte.

(6) WE are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in thinking that if the minor punishments inflicted on the respondents were taken into consideration at the time of considering their merit for the purpose of inclusion in the list of Deputy Tahsildars, that would amount to double jeopardy. In our opinion the said view expressed by the Tribunal is clearly contrary to the legal position in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors. This Court held that:

"28. The Tribunal has also struck down the following portion in the second Subparagraph after clause (Hi) of paragraph 3 which reads as follows: "If any penalty is imposed on the officer as result of the disciplinary proceedings or if he is found guilty in the court proceedings against him, the findings in the sealed cover/covers shall not be acted upon" and has directed that if the proceedings result in a penalty, the person concerned should be considered for promotion in a Review DPC as on the original date in the light of the results of the sealed cover as also the imposition of penalty, and his claim for promotion cannot be deferred for the subsequent DPCs as provided in the instructions. It may be pointed out that the said sub-paragraph directs that "the officers case for promotion may be cons