The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person facing departmental charges under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules does not have an enforceable legal right to claim promotion.

This judgment shall dispose of the following writ petitions, viz.,

Sl. No.

Case No.

Name of the Petitioner 1

W.P.No.7043 of 2008

N.Balagurunathan

2

W.P.No.4068 of 2009

A.Angamuthu

3

W.P.No.5912 of 2009

R.Dhamodharan

4

W.P.No.5913 of 2009

S.Udhayakumar

5

W.P.No.11211 of 2009

K.Kalyanakumar

6

W.P.No.11212 of 2009

N.Ravichandran

7

W.P.No.13680 of 2009

J.Jayanthi

8

W.P.No.11854 of 2009

P.Shanmugam

9

W.P.No.26387 of 2009

K.Palanisamy

10

W.P.No.15297 of 2010

A.Sundaraganesan

as common question of law is raised in all these writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.No.15297 of 2010.

2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider him for promotion as Superintendent for the year 2008-2009 without reference to and without taking into account the pendency of the charge memo under rule 17(b) in Government Letter No.58016/Tr.II/07-3 dated 23.08.2007 and the charge pending in T.D.P.No.15/2007 dated 29.06.2007. In some of the cases, the prayer is also for quashing the charge sheet. In view of the fact that all the writ petitioners were consolidated on oral request by the learned counsel for the petitioners, they were allowed to address arguments, to challenge the charge sheet in all the cases.

3. Two questions are arised for consideration in this writ petition, i.e.

i) Whether under Rule 39(d) of Tamil Nadu State and Sub-ordinate Services Rules, a person facing enquiry under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, has enforceable legal right to claim promotion;

ii) Whether in view of facts and circumstances of the case, charge sheet issued under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is liable to be quashed.

4. The pleadings in the affidavit in support of the writ petition reads that the petitioner joined as a Junior Assistant with the respondent on 24.10.1994, and was promoted as Assistant in the year 1998. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he was fully qualified to be promoted as Superintendent on the crucial date i.e. 15.03.2007 for the year 2007-2008.

5. The case of the petitioner is that he has clean record of service and no punishment has been awarded till date. The Transport Commissioner vide order dated 18.06.2007 published a panel of Assistant fit for promotion as Superintendent in which the name of the petitioner was not included due to the pendency of the charge memo against him under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

6. According to the petitioner, 12 persons were promoted to the post of Superintendent out of whom, some were juniors to the petitioner.

7. The case of the petitioner is that the allegations levelled against the petitioner was of shortage of Rs.14,980/- in collection of fees whereas subsequently charge of corruption was also levelled. Similar allegations were also levelled against the then Regional Transport Officer Thiru. C.Ramalingam, Tmt.P.Malleswari, Superintendent, Thiru V.Singaravelu, Typist, Thiru S.Senthil Arumugam, Junior Assistant and Thiru K.Vadivel, Dispatch Clerk.

8. The case of the petitioner is that the allegations of misconduct are of the year 2003, but the charge sheet against the petitioner was issued after the lapse of 4 years. It is also the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the charge sheet was issued in the year 2007, the enquiry has not been concluded, thereby denying the petitioner the right of promotion to the post of Superintendent.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the facts pleaded above prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-

"It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well