COMMON ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected and arise out of the same set of facts relating to disciplinary proceedings, seniority and promotion, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Facts in brief :-

a) The petitioner’s father, who was working as Assistant in Harur Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District, died in harness on 05.09.1992. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 13.02.2002. His services were subsequently regularised retrospectively and his probation was declared. He had passed the Departmental Test on 29.04.2004.

b) According to the petitioner, though he was eligible for inclusion in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant as on 01.03.2006, his name was not included. His junior, Mr. R. Raman, was promoted as Assistant on 08.02.2007, whereas the petitioner was promoted only on 23.06.2010. Aggrieved, he approached this Court in W.P. No.34855 of 2015 and, by order dated 30.10.2015, this Court directed consideration of his representation. Pursuant thereto, by proceedings dated 13.01.2016, the District Collector revised his seniority by placing him above Mr. R. Raman in the cadre of Assistant and consequently in the cadre of Deputy Block Development Officer.

c) The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 04.03.2016. While serving in that capacity, he was transferred from Morappur Panchayat Union to Pappireddipatti Panchayat Union and joined duty on 14.06.2016.

d) Subsequently, a charge memo dated 02.11.2016 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging non-production of records relating to works executed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme during a special audit.

e) After enquiry, the 3^rd respondent imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect on the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2023. Subsequently, he filed appeal before the appellate authority and the 2^nd respondent/appellate authority modified the punishment to one of “Censure” by order dated 30.09.2024. Aggrieved by the punishment and its impact on his seniority and promotional prospects, the present writ petitions have been filed.

f) Insofar as W.P. No.28540 of 2025, the petitioner challenges the rejection orders dated 08.08.2023 and 29.04.2025 passed by the 3^rd respondent, wherein his name was placed at Sl. Nos. 25 and 11 instead of Sl. Nos. 21 and 5, and the consequential approved panel. Thereby, he seeks appropriate re-fixation of seniority and consequential promotion.

g) Insofar as W.P. No.28597 of 2025, the petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 30.09.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent and the consequential approved name panel list issued by the 3^rd respondent dated17.03.2025.

h) In common, it is the grievance of the petitioner that due to punishment imposed by the respondents, he suffered a lot and it affected his promotional avenue, due to wrong fixation of seniority in the appropriate posts. Thereby, these writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the rejection orders dated 08.08.2023 and 29.04.2025 passed by the 3^rd respondent and the proceedings dated 30.09.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent and 17.03.2025 and the panel list issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 17.03.2025.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge memo was issued after the petitioner had already been transferred and relieved from Morappur Panchayat Union. The records pertaining to audit are very much available in the custody of the office, from where the petitioner was transferred and therefore it is the argument that fastening liability upon an Officer who had been transferred to other place is arbitrary and the same is unsustainable.

4. He further submitted that though the charge memo was issued in2016, the proceedings culminated in punishment only in 2023, reflecting inordinate