The main legal point established is that 'Censure' punishment does not warrant the imposition of check periods for promotion, and surcharge proceedings should not automatically disqualify an individual from promotion.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to impugned proceedings of the first respondent vide G.O.(MS)No.170, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CDI) Department dated 10.10.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to provide notional promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies from the date on which the petitioner's junior has been promoted and pay the consequential monetary benefit.)

1.This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, vide G.O.Ms.No.170, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CDI) Department dated 10.10.2013 and consequently direct the first and second respondents to provide notional promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, from the date on which the petitioner's junior has been promoted and pay the consequential monetary benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Senior Inspector in the Cooperative Department on 16.07.1986. Subsequently, promoted as Cooperative Sub-Registrar and then Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and posted as Managing Director of Srivilliputhur Cooperative Urban Bank Limited and has put in 29 years of service. While the petitioner was working as Cooperative Sub-Registrar in Tirunelveli Central District Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, a charge memo, dated 17.08.2009 was issued, under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging that the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty. The said charge memo had culminated in imposing punishment of 'Censure', vide order, dated 04.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner had challenged the said punishment before the third respondent and the same was dismissed on 31.10.2011. In addition to the disciplinary proceedings, a Surcharge Decree, dated 18.05.2007 was passed against the petitioner for the loss of Rs.70,500/-. The petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.M.A(CS)No.68 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge (Cooperative Tribunal), Tirunelveli and the same was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2014 by exonerating the petitioner, from the charge of dereliction of duty and for the allegation of causing loss to the society. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has prepared a panel of Cooperative Sub Registrar to be promoted as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide G.O. (3D) No.9 Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 07.06.2011 to the year 2010-2011. The petitioner's name was included in the panel of Cooperative Sub-Registrar in Serial No.121 (Seniority No.1160). To the shock and surprise of the petitioner he was not promoted as Deputy Registrar, but his junior namely Mr.M.Kumaresan (Seniority No.1162), was promoted as Deputy Registrar. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 20.07.2011 and the same was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 10.10.2013.

3. The petitioner submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of 'Censure', subsequent to the crucial date, but before the actual promotion and hence the petitioner was not eligible to be promoted as per Government letters. In the impugned order, dated 10.10.2013, it has been mentioned that the amount in pursuance of surcharge decree, dated 18.05.2007 will be recovered from the petitioner and in such circumstances, the petitioner would not be eligible for promotion.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that, since in the disciplinary proceedings only 'Censure' was imposed as punishment, the respondent ought to have considered the petitioner's name since for the check period cannot be invoked for the punishment of Censure. The learned counsel appearin