The main legal point established in the judgment is the exoneration of the petitioner from charges of misappropriation and the repayment of the recovered amount, leading to the grant of notional promotion with pensionary benefits but declining monetary benefits and other increments.

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 pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.Si1/3304/2014 dated 17.06.2015 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the third respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent by refixing the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant within the time stipulated by this Court.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed for Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 17.06.2015 and consequently direct the third respondent to promote the petitioner in the post of Superintendent by refixing the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant.

2. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 16.12.1989 in the third respondent Municipality. As per the seniority list in the cadre of Junior Assistant, eligible persons for promotion to the post of Assistant is published vide proceedings dated 09.02.2001, wherein, the petitioner was placed next to one S.R.Mallika and above one R.Jeyalakshmi. While giving promotion to the post of Assistant, the petitioner was left out as ineligible on account of charges of misappropriation and recovery proceedings. The misappropriation and recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other few co-delinquents. One of the codelinquent Gnanasamuthram died on 01.04.2000 and the said deceased wife had acknowledged that her husband was guilty of misappropriation of the entire amount of Rs.65,428.50/- and the said amount was deposited. The Assistant Commissioner (Administration), Main Office, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation passed an order vide proceedings dated 07.03.2002 exonerating the petitioner and others from the charges of misappropriation and recovered amounts also reimbursed to the petitioner and others. It was also mentioned in the said order that withheld promotions shall be awarded by the appropriate seniority. In spite of the order of exoneration, the petitioner was given promotion only on 18.09.2006, though the petitioner was included in the panel of promotion much prior to that date. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.10.2006 to the third respondent stating that the promotion to the post of Assistant should have been provided with effect from 30.05.2001 on which the petitioner's junior was promoted to the post of Assistant. In the meanwhile, the third respondent issued seniority in the cadre of Assistant as eligible for promotion to the next promotional cadre of Superintendent, in which the petitioner's name was placed much below the juniors. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 05.11.2012 and later another representation dated 08.11.2012 objecting the seniority panel and prayed to refix the seniority. The petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No.14812 of 2012 directing the third respondent therein to refix the seniority by advancing the date of promotion to the post of Assistant from 18.09.2006 to 30.05.2001. In the meanwhile, the third respondent refused the promotion by citing an order dated 08.12.2012 which is one line order, unmindful of the fact that the charges have been withdrawn and recovered amount to the tune of Rs. 11,050/- is also returned to the petitioner. Again, the petitioner preferred another Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.19459 of 2013 challenging the subsequent order of rejection and this Court vide order dated 03.04.2014 directed the third respondent to take a decision upon the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation. The contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent passed an order dated 24.07.2014 stating that the requested promotion to the post of Superintendent by refixing the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Assistant was rejected, since as on the date, there was a punishment a