IMPORTANT POINT
If promotion is denied on ground of pendency of departmental proceedings, on quashing of the punishment employee automatically becomes entitled to consideration for promotion.

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted. The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are whether as a sequel to quashing of the order of punishment by the learned Single Judge, the Appellant became entitled to be promoted to the higher post from the date persons junior to him were promoted and whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in declaring that he shall not be entitled to claim notional promotion or promotional benefits.

2. The Appellant joined service as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu in 1982. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him vide Memo dated 6.7.1993 on the charge that he was responsible for shortage of material. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 3.10.1994 and directed that ` 1,52,941/- be recovered from the Appellant. That order was set aside by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide order dated 27.30.1994 but gave liberty to the competent authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. After about six years, the Appellant was served with Memo dated 31.7.2000 for holding an inquiry on the same charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. After considering the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 11.6.2004 for recovery of ` 1,52,941/- in 74 monthly installments and also imposed the penalty of stoppage of an increment for six months without cumulative effect.

3. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the State Government promoted 59 Assistant Engineers, including those who were junior to the Appellant, to the posts of Executive Engineers. The Appellant was denied promotion on account of pendency of the departmental proceedings. The representation made by him for promotion to the next higher post was rejected vide letter dated 21.2.2005 on the ground that the punishment imposed vide order dated 11.6.2004 would remain operative till 31.7.2010, i.e., the date of his superannuation.

4. Writ Petition Nos. 10600 and 10601 of 2005 filed by the Appellant questioning the order of punishment and rejection of his representation were allowed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground of unexplained delay of about six years in re-initiation of the departmental inquiry.

5. The Respondents did not challenge the annulment of communication dated 21.2.2005 vide which the Appellant's representation for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was rejected, but filed Writ Appeal No. 1204/2010 and questioned that part of the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he quashed the order of punishment. The Division Bench of the High Court took cognizance of the fact that the second charge memo was issued after long delay of almost 7 years and on account of pendency of the departmental proceedings, the Appellant had been deprived of promotion to the next higher post and dismissed the appeal subject to the rider that the Appellant shall not be entitled to claim notional promotion or promotional benefits. This is evinced from the operative portion of order dated 7.7.2010 of the Division Bench, which reads as under:

Taking into consideration all these facts, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the order of punishment in a departmental proceedings, which was concluded in about 15 years. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, needs no interference by this Court. However, it is made clear that since the order of punishment has been quashed only on the ground of delay, the Respondent shall not be entitled to claim any notional promotion or promotional benefits, save and except his claim of retiral benefits on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also made clear that if any part of the amount has already been recovered, no further amount shall be recovered from the Respondent.

6. The Appellant sought review of the aforesaid or