Ratios
a. Any administrative instructions/order issued by the officials of the Government under Art.162 of the Constitution of India is subservient to the rules framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India.
b. In the absence of specific statutory rules, a Government servant cannot be denied promotion on the ground that he had undergone punishment earlier.

1. The reference made in the batch of cases to the Full Bench relates to the issue, as to whether the currency of punishment has to be treated as a bar for promotion during the period, as it was held otherwise by the Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian v. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Chennai and others [2008 (5) MLJ 350].

2. In the above cited case, the delinquent was imposed with punishment of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect as a minor punishment under rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The delinquent, who was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer was served with a charge memo issued under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and after enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years without cumulative effect. A Panel for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was notified by the Government in G.O.Ms. No.36 Public Works (A1) Department dated 31.01.1997, in which the said delinquent's name did not find a place and therefore, he approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1647 of 2002 for including his name in the promotion list of Executive Engineers.

a) Pending adjudication before the Tribunal, it appears that as per the direction of the Tribunal, his name was included in the panel for the year 1996-97 and he was also promoted as Executive Engineer by G.O.Ms.No.172, Public Works (A2) Department dated 23.3.1999. It was, thereafter, the punishment of withholding increments for two years without cumulative effect came to be passed by the Government on 16.10.2000. The Government published the promotion list in respect of next category ofSuperintending Engineers in G.O.Ms.No.317, Public Works (A1) Department dated 26.6.2000, in which the delinquent’s name did not find a place, against which the petitioner made a representation, for which he was informed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department on 24.8.2001 that it was due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings culminated into the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years, his name could not be included. Challenging the said order, the delinquent moved the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.5801 of 2001 challenging the said order of punishment and the Tribunal upheld the punishment and also held that he could not be directed to be promoted as Superintending Engineer during the currency of punishment.

b) It was, challenging the order of the Tribunal, the writ petition was filed and the Division Bench accepted the order of the Tribunal and held as follows:

"20. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has not incurred any loss. However, the petitioner is guilty of certain technical lapses, without involving any fraud, cheating or misappropriation, which amounts to violation of Rules quoted in the charge memo. Hence, the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect is justified and can never be stated to be severe or disproportionate to the proved charges."

c) In respect of granting of promotion during the currency of punishment, the Division Bench has ultimately held as follows:

"22. The petitioner was admittedly imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, as per G.O.(2D) No.49 dated 16.10.2000. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be construed only as a minor punishment and solely based on the same, he could not be denied further promotion. It is seen further that stoppage of increment was given effect by order dated 16.10.2000 for two years. The respondents have not denied that the petitioner had to attain superannuation only on 30.04.2003. In such circumstances, he was eligible to be considered for promotion along with his junior, prior to the date of superannuation. If he is otherwise fit for promotion along with his juniors, he would be eligible for notional pr