Promotion eligibility must be assessed based on the crucial date, not subsequent disciplinary actions, ensuring timely resolution of disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(S. SRIMATHY, J.)

The writ appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition against the order, dated 30.07.2024, passed in W.P.(MD)No.6058 of 2024.

2. The writ petition was filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the deferred list published by the 1^st respondent, dated 19.02.2024, in so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently, to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Superintendent on par with his batch mates for the panel year 2016-2017 taking into account of the crucial date, i.e., on 15.03.2016 since there was no pending charge memo and currency of punishment and without reference to the subsequent charge memo issued under 17(b), dated 03.06.2020, in terms of Section 7, Schedule XI Part A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.

3. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the writ petitioner was in the list as on the crucial date 15.03.2016 for promotion and there was no charge pending against the writ petitioner, but the respondents deferred the petitioner’s name in the promotional panel for the year 2016-2017 by citing a charge memo, dated 03.06.2020, which is subsequent to the crucial date. Since the panel for 2016-2017 was belatedly prepared on 19.02.2024, the subsequent charge memo cannot be cited to decline promotion. In other words, even though the charge memo was issued in the year 2020, the respondents failed to include the petitioner’s name for the panel 2016-2017, hence the writ petition was filed.

4. The contention of the appellants is that the charges were framed against the writ petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the same is pending. The charges are grave and serious in nature. If the allegations in the charges are proved, the writ petitioner has no legitimate right to continue in the service. On assessment of the writ petitioner's service, the authority concerned found that the writ petitioner was not meritorious or fit for promotion. The non-drawal of regular panel for the post of Superintendent for the year 2016-2017 was due to the pendency of W.P.No.13520 of 2018 and W.A.No.1565 of 2019 and SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the department could not arrive at the decision in fixing seniority between promoted Assistants and direct Assistants for any promotion. The employee should have unblemished service to protect the public interest. Hence, promotion was denied on the reasonable ground of pendency of charge memo and disciplinary proceedings. The appellants acted as per the provisions in item 8 part II under Part A in Schedule XI read with Sec 7(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and the writ petitioner was deferred in the panel to the post of Superintendent for the year 2016-2017. There are several judgments which granted promotion beyond the scope of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, but the same are stayed in the appeal. The appellants have deferred the promotion to the writ petitioner by following the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.Janakiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010, hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. The relevant portion of the judgement is extracted hereunder:

"If the Tribunal's finding is accepted, it would mean that by giving him the selection Grade w.e.f. July 30, 1986 he would stand rewarded notwithstanding his misconduct for the earlier period for which the disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of meeting of the DPC and for which he was visited with a penalty. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the finding of the Tribunal".

5. After considering the rival submissions, the Writ Court has held that even though the audit objections on the allegation made on the charge relating to the year 2016-2017, admittedly, no charges have been issued in this regard during the relevant point of time. The Writ Court re