JUDGMENT :

Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.01.2020 passed in W.P.No.32269 of 2012.)

1. The State filed this appeal questioning the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2020 allowing W.P.No.32269 of 2012 with a direction to give notional promotion to the writ petitioner.

2. The respondent is the writ petitioner and he entered into service as Assistant Inspector of Sericulture on 02.05.1980 in the appellants Department and promoted as Inspector of Sericulture on 07.02.1986. While he was working as Senior Inspector of Sericulture, he was issued with a charge memo dated 27.11.2001, which was served upon him on 13.12.2001. After enquiry, the report was submitted on 29.11.2005 holding that the same were proved. Only on 30.03.2008, it was communicated to him and he made a further representation on 10.04.2008. After hearing the writ petitioner, vide G.O.Ms.No.48, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department, dated 06.04.2011, he was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect. The next level of promotion for an Inspector in the appellants Department is Assistant Director. Since the writ petitioner was suffering currency of punishment, his name was not included in the promotion panel for the year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, the crucial date for preparation of the same being 1st April of those years. The writ petitioner submitted an appeal on 17.12.2011 for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion, but the same was rejected by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.235, dated 09.11.2012. He successfully questioned the said rejection order before the writ Court. Hence, the present appeal.

3. The learned State Government Counsel invited this Court’s attention to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Services) Act, 2016 and contended that the name of the writ petitioner could not be included in the list, in view of the pendency of charge memo and the order of the learned Single Judge directing to give notional promotion to him, without considering the said aspect is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent would submit that the charge memo was issued as early as on 27.11.2001, for which, he submitted his explanation on 22.12.2001. Though the enquiry officer submitted the report on 29.11.2005, it was communicated to him only on 30.03.2008 calling for his further explanation, which he promptly submitted on 10.04.2008, but nearly after three years, the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months with cumulative effect was imposed upon the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent also produced a copy of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms)No.32, HHT & K Department, dated 18.02.2013, and submitted that the said punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months “with cumulative effect” was modified to one of “without cumulative effect”, taking into account the 32 years of service rendered by the writ petitioner and such modification was made based on the opinion/report furnished by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is his contention that had the authorities conducted the proceedings in time, the period of punishment would have been over and the petitioner would have been promoted in time. Thus, taking note of the enormous delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, which only led to the denial of promotion to the writ petitioner, the writ Court rightly passed the impugned order and sought to sustain the same.

5. Heard the learned State Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

6. The facts are not in dispute. The writ petitioner was served with the charge memo on 27.11.2001 and he submitted his explanation on 22.12.2001. The enquiry officer was appointed after a period of three and half years, thereafter, and upon conclusion of enquir