1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8084 of 2011 N.Tholkappian ... Petitioner -Vs- The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture Department Chief Secretariat Chennai - 600 009 ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the representations dated 25.02.2009 and 01.06.2010 of the petitioner regarding promotion as Assistant Director of Agriculture on merits within a specified time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasekar Government Advocate O R D E R Pleadings disclose that a charge memorandum was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) rules by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, in his memo, dated 11.04.2001 and the said charge memorandum was subsequently dropped in G.O.(3-D) No. 377, Agricultural Department. Despite the same, the name of the petitioner was not included in the approved list of Assistant Director of Agriculture of the year 2007-2008 on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 2. It is the further case of the petitioner, an approved list of Assistant Director of Agriculture of the year 2007 was published on 24.12.2007 as per G.O.No. 536 Agriculture Department. Unfortunately, again the charge memorandum which was dropped in G.O. (3-D) No. 377, Agricultural Department, dated 23.11.2007 was put against the petitioner and he was not included. Expressing grievance over non-inclusion of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture, he made representation, dated 25.02.2009 to the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Chennai, seeking for inclusion of his name in the approved list for promotion as Assistant Director of Agriculture and also sent a reminder on 01.06.2010. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Agriculture on the sole ground of pendency of charges, though dropped by Government and there is a failure on the part of the respondent, necessitating him to file the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus. 4. Considering the limited relief sought for Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Government Advocate was put on notice and heard. He submitted that the representations of the writ petitioner, dated 25.02.2009 and 01.06.2010, regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed. His submission is placed on record. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Perusal of G.O.(3-D) No. 377, Agricultural Department, dated 23.11.2007 shows that the charges levelled against the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 11.04.2001, of the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai, has not held as proved and accepting the same, the Government have dropped further action. Subsequently, when the panel for the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture of the year 2007-2008 was drawn, the petitioner has been denied, inclusion on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Perusal of the Government Letter No. 39402/AA.1/2007-3, dated 24.12.2007 of the Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai, does not indicate what were the other charges pending against the petitioner, on the date of drawal of panel. However, it is the specific case of the petitioner except the disciplinary proceedings initiated and dropped, no other charges were pending. Perusal of the representations stated supra also support the case of the petitioner, that except the charges which were levelled in the year 2004, no other proceedings were pending. It is also evident from G.O.No. 149, Agricultural Department, dated 15.07.2009. Subsequently, a panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture has also been drawn. Though the action on the disciplinary proceedings has been dropped by the Government in G.O.(3-D) No. 377, Agricultural Department, dated 23.11.2007 for nearly 5 years, the petitioner has been stagnated in the post of Agricultural Officer, while his Junior have marched ahead of him. Is well settled that no sooner the disciplinary proceedings have been dropped, the petitioner has entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post, if he otherwise eligible under the service rules. Admittedly, the representations have been unanswered and therefore, this Court is of the view that there is a failure on the part of the respondent in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. 7. Considering the limited relief sought for, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the representations, dated 25.02.2009 and 01.06.2010, on merits and in accordance with law in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the light of the observations stated supra, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. As there is already a considerable delay, it is hoped that the respondent would comply with the directions, within the time frame, to avoid further litigation. 9. With the above said directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Secretary to Government Agriculture Department Chief Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 24051 W.P.(MD).No.8084 of 2011 vsg SMA/29.7.2011/3C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/