A government servant is entitled to promotion consideration after the period of minor punishment, as imposed check periods are illegal and impermissible under statutory rules.

 ORDER :

Battu Devanand, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the materials available on record.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed as Shift Engineer in the respondent Corporation by order dated 04.06.1993. In the year 2013, the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 10.11.2014 and he was awarded with a punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for six months. Thereafter, he awaiting for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mech.,). A panel of Assistant Engineers to consider them for the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mech.,) for the year 2017 was issued by the respondent vide impugned order dated 20.04.2018 including three names. In that list, the petitioner's name is not included. Due to the reason that, he was awarded with a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and as though, the punishment is falling in the 5 years of check period for the promotion panel for the year 2017. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the promotion panel for Assistant Engineer (Mech.,) post for the year 2017, he constrained to file the present writ petition.

3. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed. It is averred in the counter that, the estimated vacancy of the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2017 was arrived as 3 (Three) and the respondents have considered 13 numbers of Shift Engineers for consideration for preparing the panel of Assistant Engineer (Mech.,) for the year 2017. It is further averred that, as per the instructions given by the Government vide Letter No.248, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 20.10.1997 wherein, it is stipulated that if any punishment other than Censure imposed within a period of 5 years prior to the crucial date, the concerned Officer's name has to be passed over in the eligible panel to the next year. In the present case, against the petitioner, a punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for six months was imposed on 10.11.2014 and as such, till completion of 5 years check period, the petitioner's name cannot be included in the panel for Assistant Engineer (Mech.,). Due to that reason, his name was not included in the panel for the year, 2017.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, while it is true that the pendency of punishment can be certainly a ground for the Government to deny the promotion till the completion of period of punishment, it can never be said that even after the period of punishment is over, in between the date of crucial date and the date of punishment there must be one year in case of Censure and 5 years in other cases as disqualification period. He further contends that, the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of six months is a minor punishment. As on date of preparing the panel and the crucial date of punishment is not in the currency and the postponement period of one year for minor punishment is also over by the year 2015, as such, the punishment cannot be a bar for not including the petitioner in the panel.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed a reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench Court of this Court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and Another vs. V. Rani reported in (2011) 4 Mad LJ 1 (FB) and would submit that already the issue involved in the present writ petition has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court and as per the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment, the action of the respondents in not including the name of the petitioner in the panel for the year 2017, is illegal and liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that due to punish