IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 24.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 28.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR W.P.No.27050 of 2019 R.Balamurugan ... Petitioner vs

1. The State Rep by its Secretary Home (Transport) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Transport Commissioner, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to impugned order of the 2^nd respondent passed in proceedings No.RP1/25294/2018 dated 02.08.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner on par with his immediate junior Mr.Ch.Prabhakaran, with all monetary, service and attended benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayshankar For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, Spl.GP

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 19.10.2001 and on successful completion of probation, his service was regularised; that he was issued with a charge memo dated 04.01.2005 alleging there occurred a shortage of Rs.51/- during the surprise inspection; and that based on the enquiry held into the aforesaid charge the 2^nd respondent passed order dated 23.10.2008 visiting him with punishment of removal from service.

4. The petitioner contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal from service he had filed an appeal to the 1^st respondent, and the 1^st respondent by an order dated 09.03.2011 modified the order of removal from service, to one into stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect; and that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the 1^st respondent, modifying the punishment awarded, the petitioner was reinstated into service w.e.f. 13.05.2011; and that the period of absence i.e., from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement i.e, from 16.11.2008 to 12.05.2011 was treated as absence and the said period would not count for any purposes.

5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent thereafter included his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 2009-2010 vide proceedings dated 30.01.2014; that the first respondent thereafter vide GO.Ms.No.80 dated 20.01.2017 had drawn up a panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent for the panel year 2014-2015; that eventhough his name was mentioned at Sl.No.1, in the said list, he was not granted promotion to the post of Superintendent, while other candidates whose names were mentioned in the list were promoted to the post of Superintendent. Thus, it is contended that he was excluded from consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent.

6. The petitioner further contended that the 1^st respondent thereafter by the impugned proceedings dated 02.08.2019 cancelled the earlier proceedings dated 31.01.2014, whereby the petitioner name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant for the year 2009-2010 claiming that his name was wrongly included and that the petitioner will be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant only in the panel year

2016-2017, which action it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. 7. The petitioner contended that the respondents cannot be allowed to claim that the order of the 1^st respondent modifying the punishment, would take effect only from the date of his reinstatement into service, on the order by which he was visited with punishment of removal from service was set aside and modified to one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect, being a minor penalty.

8. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (i) (2015) 2 SCC 610 – Union of India and oth