JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.A2/407/2019, dated 03.07.2019 in respect of non-inclusion of petitioner's name in the panel of Assistants for the year 2019 and to quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to include the petitioner's name in Sl.No.1 above K.Amsaveni in the panel of Assistants drawn for the year 2019.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the third respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.A2/407/2019, dated 03.07.2019 in respect of non-inclusion of petitioner's name in the panel of Assistants for the year 2019 and to quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to include the petitioner's name in Sl.No.1 above K.Amsaveni in the panel of Assistants drawn for the year 2019.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Village Administrative Officer and recruited through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 10.03.2008 and allotted to Pudukkottai District. Thereafter, she was transferred to Tiruvannamalai District and she joined in the Revenue Unit therein. The petitioner is presently serving as Village Administrative Officer, Tiruvannamalai Taluk and District. According to her, she had served for about 14 years with blemish-less service, and there was no complaint against her at all during her entire service period. She was due for promotion to the post of Assistant since 2019.

3. On 23.05.2016, the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that she had demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- for issuance of extract of Chitta, Land Ownership Certificate, etc., to a third party. According to the petitioner, no criminal case has been registered on the above allegation, but in respect of the departmental charges, the petitioner appeared to have submitted an explanation on 03.06.2016 denying the charges.

4. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the above explanation of the petitioner, ordered enquiry into the charges. On completion of the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were not proved. Accordingly, a report was also submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, the fourth respondent herein. The Disciplinary Authority, not being satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, ordered fresh enquiry in the presence of the Vigilance officials by appointing one Mr.Dhananjayan, Tahsildar, Urban Land Tax Scheme, Thiruvannamalai, vide proceedings dated 13.10.2016.

5. Although such second enquiry was illegal and not contemplated in the Rules, according to the petitioner, she participated in that enquiry also and finally, the second Enquiry Officer also had submitted a report on 28.04.2017 holding that there was no illegal demand as alleged in the charge memo. According to the said report, money was demanded as part of the Flag Day collection. But the Disciplinary Authority, notwithstanding the report in favour of the petitioner, passed an order of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect, by proceedings dated 25.04.2018 and this order was communicated to the petitioner on that day itself.

6. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the above order passed by the fourth respondent (Disciplinary Authority), had preferred an appeal on 07.05.2018 before the third respondent/Appellate Authority, and the said appeal was rejected, vide order dated 12.10.2018, confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, a Review Petition was filed before the first respondent on 09.12.2018. In the meanwhile, a panel was drawn in the category of Assistants for the year 2018, vide proceedings dated 29.06.2018. The petitioner's name was n