Court dismisses writ petition challenging promotion panel inclusion order, upholds validity of second charge memo.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order to include the petitioner's name in the 2009 promotion panel for Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. It was held that the second charge memo, issued during the pendency of the first charge memo, was valid as it addressed procedural irregularities. The withdrawal of the first charge memo did not impact the continuation of disciplinary proceedings, rendering the petitioner ineligible for promotion. The court affirmed that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings and upheld the validity of the second charge memo, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Validity of the charge memos dated 19.01.2009 and 18.03.2010.
2. Inclusion of the petitioner's name in the promotion panel for the year 2009.
3. Impact of the withdrawal of the first charge memo on the petitioner's eligibility for promotion.

Summary:

The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge the order dated 05.05.2011, requesting the inclusion of their name in the 2009 promotion panel for Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and retrospective promotion with consequential benefits.

1. Validity of the charge memos:

The petitioner was issued a charge memo on 19.01.2009 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging possession of unexplained cash and failure to maintain integrity. A second charge memo dated 18.03.2010 was issued based on the same incident, involving multiple officials. The petitioner argued that the two charge memos were based on the same allegations and the issuance of the second charge memo was procedurally improper. The court, however, found that the second charge memo was issued by a competent authority to address procedural irregularities in the first charge memo, and thus, the second charge memo was valid.

2. Inclusion in the promotion panel:

The petitioner's name was not included in the 2009 promotion panel due to the pending charge memo dated 19.01.2009. The court held that as long as disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) were pending, the petitioner could not be considered for promotion, in line with Government guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.368, P&AR Department dated 18.10.1993.

3. Impact of the withdrawal of the first charge memo:

The first charge memo was withdrawn on 30.03.2011. The petitioner argued that this withdrawal should obliterate the proceedings from inception, making them eligible for promotion. However, the court found that the second charge memo, issued during the pendency of the first, was a continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. The court cited the judgment in P. Balu v. Central Administrative Tribunal, emphasizing that a charge memo withdrawn due to technical defects can be reissued, and thus, the second charge memo was valid. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion on the crucial date due to the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion due to the pending disciplinary proceedings and the validity of the second charge memo. No costs were awarded.

---