ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The order dated 30.09.2013, passed in W.P.[MD] No. 15690 of 2013 is sought to be revised in the present writ petition.

2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the review petitioners made a submission that the order passed is erroneous on the ground that the Court has committed an error apparent on record by not considering the pendency of the charges against the respondent employee as well as the criminal case which was pending during the relevant point of time when the promotion panel was prepared. It is contended that at the time of preparation of panel for promotion to the higher post, the respondent officer was facing departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case.

3. As per the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and as per the guidelines issued by the Government, in the matter of promotion, an employee who is facing the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case is not entitled for promotion to the higher post. Pendency of departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal case is a bar for promotion. The Court has not considered the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal case as well as the departmental proceedings against the respondent employee. The ground raised also reveals that the Government also issued instructions pending charges is a bar for promotion.

4. Admittedly, the respondent employee was facing departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal case during the relevant point of time. This Court while passing final orders considered the judgment of the State of Punjab and others v. Chamanlal Goyal, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570, wherein the Court considered promotion on certain facts and circumstances. However, in the present case on hand, the promotion policy of the Government reveals that the pendency under Section 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Sub-ordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as well as the pendency of the criminal case are a bar for further promotions to the higher post. The details regarding the pendency of the charges as well as the criminal case were not revealed at the time of passing the final orders and the same were not considered while passing final orders in the writ petition. The disciplinary proceedings ended with the order of punishment and the very same respondent Mr. Ramasamy, filed other writ petitions challenging the order of punishment and some of the writ petitions are disposed of.

5. Be that as it may, as far as the present review application is concerned, the fact remains that the writ petitioner was facing disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal case, when the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was prepared. In view of the bar, the writ petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thus, the order passed in W.P.[MD] No. 15690 of 2013 dated 30.09.2013 deserves to be reviewed in view of the fact that there is an error apparent with reference to the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal and departmental proceedings were not taken note of while passing final orders.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment, the Court has taken note of the criminal case and the order of acquittal passed in the criminal case. Further, it is contended that the departmental disciplinary proceedings were also taken note of. It is contended in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment that the departmental disciplinary proceedings cannot be proceeded with simultaneously.

7. With reference to the above observation made by this Court, in paragraph No. 4 of the judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Supreme Court in a number of judgments held that simultaneous proceedings are permissible. Mere pendency of a criminal case is not a bar for continuance of departmental disciplinary proceedings. In this regar