ORDER :

The petitioner herein was originally included in the promotional panel for the post of Additional Commissioner for the year 2014-2015 and accordingly he was promoted to the said post. Thereafter, one P.Vasunathan, Joint Commissioner who was senior to the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court and pursuant to the orders passed therein, he was placed at Sl.No.1 in the seniority list of Assistant Commissioner for the year 2014-2015 and the petitioner was reverted from the said post. Consequently, P.Vasunathan, was promoted as an Additional Commissioner and he had also retired from service. In this background, when the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional Commissioner, the impugned charge memo dated 05.05.2017, came to be framed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the earlier proceedings of this Court where his reversion was challenged and the orders of the learned Single Judge, setting aside the reversion, which were confirmed till the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that, as per the observations made by the High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issuance of the charge memo was only for the purpose of disentitling him for promotion, the charge memo requires to be quashed. Learned Senior counsel also submits that there is a delay in initiation of the charges.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader has placed reliance on the averments stated in the counter affidavit and submitted that in a parallel proceedings in Crl.O.P (MD).No.3466 of 2016, this Court had directed the Department to conduct an enquiry into the administration of the temples in Kanyakumari District for the past eight years and submit its report. In pursuance to this enquiry, the delinquency attributed against the petitioner was found and therefore, charges came to be framed against him. Learned Additional Government Pleader would attribute the same reason for the delay in framing of charges also.

4. Earlier when the petitioner was reverted from the post of Additional Commissioner, he had challenged the proceedings before this Court in WP No.340 of 2017 and by order dated 19.06.2017, the order of reversion was set aside. The learned Single Judge in the said order made a specific observation that framing of the impugned charge memo dated 05.05.2017 is an afterthought. The said observations were made in paragraphs 13, 16 and 18 are the following manner:-

“13. ...... While serving as Additional Commissioner, he was reverted to the post of Joint Commissioner on 30.12.2016 without notice. Challenging the order of reversion, inter alia, no notice was given to the petitioner nor enquiry was conducted, the present writ petition was filed. During the pendency of this writ petition, as an afterthought, the charge memo dated 05.05.2017 was issued, therefore, the same was stayed.....”.

16. Following the said judgment, I have also held in the order dated 20.04.2010 passed in W.P.No.9264 of 2004 (N.Ganesan vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chennai) that when there was no charge pending against the petitioner therein as on the crucial date for drawing the panel for promotion, the contention of the petitioner that his name should be included in the panel of Quality Inspector for the year 1992 as on that date he was fully qualified and eligible and entitled for promotion needs to be accepted, since the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board vs. Mahinder Songh reported in 2000 (7) SCC 210 keeping in mind that as on the crucial date namely, 01.10.1992, the petitioner was eligible and within the zone of consideration. In the pre