@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D. Hariparanthaman, J.@mdashThe petitioner is now working as Middle School Head Master at Chithamoor Union, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. She was promoted as Middle School Head Master by an order dated 29.06.2012. The petitioner was included in the panel dated 09.02.2011 of Elementary School Headmaster as on 01.01.2011, fit for promotion to the post of Middle School Headmaster. The panel was issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is in serial No. 9 in the said panel. But she was not promoted as Middle School Headmaster, when others in the panel were promoted as Middle School Headmasters during September 2011.
2. The petitioner made various representations dated 23.11.2011, 30.11.2011, 07.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 to the respondents to promote her also as Headmaster in the Middle School since she was included in the panel dated 09.02.2011. Ultimately the petitioner was promoted in the year 2012, based on the panel that was issued in the year 2012. She was promoted by an order dated 29.06.2012.
3. The request of the petitioner for promotion based on her placement in the year 2011 panel was rejected by the impugned order dated 07.11.2012. The petitioner has filed the writ petition to quash the order dated 07.11.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated as follows:-
As per orders in Government Letter No. 67652/S/2002-6 dated 27.08.2003 of the P & AR Department, the period of currency of the punishment of censure is one year and hence her name was not considered at the time of promotion counseling held on 16.09.2011.
5. Heard both sides.
6. At the time of preparation of panel, no disciplinary proceedings was pending against the petitioner. As stated above, the panel was issued in February 2011.
7. However, later during the month of June 2011, a charge memo was issued under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. The same resulted in passing of the punishment order dated 20.07.2011 and imposing the punishment of Censure.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pendency of the 17(a) charges cannot be held against the petitioner as per G.O.Ms. No. 368, Personnel and Administrative Department, dated 18.10.1993. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment reported in
28(5) Consequently, the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over, in the name of ''check period'' viz., one year in the case of censure and five years in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the Statutory Rules.
9. G.O.Ms. No. 368 and also the other proceedings were considered by the Full Bench of this Court and it has been held that there cannot be a check period for the punishment of Censure. Hence, the aforesaid averments contained in the counter affidavit is contrary to the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and there is no impediment for the respondents in promoting the petitioner also as on 16.09.2011 when the others were promoted. Hence, the respondents are directed to give promotion to the petitioner along with others, based on panel for the year 2011. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to comply the aforesaid directions of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
