The embargo on the right of a government servant for promotion after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of 'check period,' is illegal and impermissible under the statutory rules.

Being aggrieved with the order dated 10.12.2010, of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Chennai, wherein the name of the petitioner was not selected to be included in the panel of Foresters fit for promotion as Rangers for the year 2010-11 qualified as on 15.08.2010, the petitioner has sought for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the same and consequently prayed for a direction to the respondents to include his name in the approved list of Forest Rangers for the year 2010 with all service and monetary benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as Junior Assistant on 08.11.1985 in the Forest Department and thereafter, promoted to the post of Assistant on 04.03.1992. Subsequently, he was transferred and included in the category of Forester in the year 1994 in the Forest Subordinate Service and joined duty as Forester from 01.02.1996, in which post he is still continuing. It is the further case of the petitioner that when he was working as Forester in W. Pudupatti Section in Srivilliputhur Forest Range, a charge memo was issued under Rule 17-a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation that he had not committed any misconduct, a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect was inflicted by proceedings of the conservator of Forest, Virudhunagar, dated 30.11.2006. In yet another proceedings, a punishment of censure was also awarded vide proceedings No.3045/2006/E dated 28.02.2007 by the Wile Life Warden.

3. In addition to the above, a charge memo under Rule 17-a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules framed by the Wile Life Warden, Srivilliputhur in his memo C.No.6839/2008/M, dated 10.08.2010 was also pending.

4. The petitioner has further contended that proposals were called for, for approval of list of Forest Rangers for the year 2009. The name of the petitioner was omitted to be included on the ground that the petitioner had suffered the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year and besides, he was issued a charge memo under Rule 17-a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.11884 of 2009. Though the petitioner was overlooked once, even though in 2010, the respondent has failed to include the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Ranger on the very same ground. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra.

5. On the above said pleadings and placing reliance of a Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129) (The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range v. V. Rani), Mr. S. Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the period of punishment viz., stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and censure awarded by the Wild Life Warden, have already been expired, the respondent has not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Ranger, notwithstanding the fact that the charge memo under Rule 17-a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, pending consideration from 10.08.2010 cannot be held as a bar for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pendency of the charge memo under Rule 17-a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is not a bar for promotion. According to him, when a Full Bench of this Court has held that the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of ‘check period’ viz., one year in the case of censure and five years in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the statutory rules, the petitioner is entitled to b