O R D E R

The petitioner who retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2007 after rendering 32 years of service has been imposed with a punishment of stoppage of one increment along with recovery of a sum of Rs.18,486/-. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to obey the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.246, Transport (C1) Department dated 27.12.2004 and to promote the petitioner herein as a Senior Superintendent w.e.f. 03.02.2002 i.e. on completion of six years of service in Superintendent Cadre which is a time bound promotion as the petitioner was promoted as a Superintendent with effect from

03.02.1996 irrespective of charges pending.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed two peculiar arguments. Firstly, when the petitioner was due for promotion on 03.02.2002, he was issued with a Charge Memo on 02.11.2004. Therefore, he is entitled to get the promotional benefits for the reason that on the due date of promotion on 03.02.2002, there was no any charge issued against him. But after two years when the petitioner and others were charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 02.11.2004, the respondents have applied the pick and choose method by providing promotion to others. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents, on their own whims and fancies, while giving promotion to 11 other persons, they cannot ignore and discriminate the petitioner alone. Hence, the approach adopted by the respondents in not giving promotion to him on par with his co- delinquents is unsustainable. Continuing his argument, the learned Counsel further submitted that there is no rule or provision withholding or denying promotional avenues on the ground that the petitioner has suffered a departmental proceedings two years after he was due for promotion. It is also submitted that when 11 other similarly placed co-delinquents were given promotion subject to the result of the pending charges, the petitioner also should have been given promotion along with other co-delinquents. The reason being that when the petitioner finally suffered the punishment of stoppage of one increment and recovery which vary from person to person, therefore, on the ground of discrimination, the order denying promotion to the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that when the petitioner worked at Chengelpet Depot from September, 1997 to January, 2002 and during the said period, the denomination of tickets to the tune of Rs.7,20,952.75 were not traceable. Hence charges were framed against the petitioner vide No.129/1829/L7/TNSTC/2004 dated 02.11.2004 and the same was also served upon him. In the meanwhile, though the post of redesignation to the higher post begins on 10.02.2002 after completing his earlier period of service on the existing post, the same was not considered due to the Government Order dated 27.12.2004 because the charge sheet was issued on 02.11.2004. Only considering the pending charges, the petitioner was not considered for his promotional post. Since the petitioner filed a Writ Petition against the probationary order, the same was ordered on

01.03.2007. In the meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and 30 other employees and 3 officers. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against all of them finally came to an end and in the end, all the charges were established against all of them. Therefore, the punishment of postponement of one increment was imposed. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the postponement of one increment was imposed against him with a direction him to pay a sum of Rs.18,486/- towards the loss of ticket.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that moreover, in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.24693/2