1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.13894 of 2011 M.P.Mahendran ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Agriculture Productive Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2011 for giving the promotion as a Assistant Director of Agriculture and consequently directing the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the promotion list 2008-09 of Assistant Director of Agriculture. For Petitioner : Mr.AR.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi Govt. Advocate O R D E R The petitioner M.P.Mahendran, who was issued with the order of punishment of censure in G.O.(D).No.130 dated 07.09.2011, as a result of the charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in the year 2011 has filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to consider the representation dated 22.09.2011 for giving him promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture with the consequential direction to the respondents to include his name in the promotion list of 2008-09 of Assistant Director of Agriculture. 2. At the very outset, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is not maintainable for the reason that admittedly the petitioner was issued with the charge memo in the year 2011 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The said 17(b) charges were pending all along https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 from 2001 to till 07.09.2011, in and by which the disciplinary authority on completion of the enquiry, initiated under Rule 17 (b) imposed an order of censure. Therefore, the record shows that the petitioner was facing 17(b) charges during the period for which he sought for promotion to include his name in the list of 2008-09. Hence, as it is a settled legal position that the pendency of 17(b) charges is an embargo for including any incumbent in the promotion list, the petitioner cannot have any grievance that his juniors were promoted by including their names in the promotion list of 2008-09 of Assistant Director of Agriculture and due to negligence on the part of the respondents, his name was left out. It is not in dispute that from 2001 the 17(b) charges were pending and finally the disciplinary proceedings came to an end on 07.09.2011. 3. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit or substance in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1. The Agriculture Productive Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 +One Cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.42898 +One Cc to Mr.A.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate, SR.No.42875 akv rl/5 c- 2.1.2012 W.P.(MD)No.13894 of 2011 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/