1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.10.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.10689 of 2011 R.Dhanabalan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Deparment, Chief Secretariat,Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Government letter No.87 AD1/2008-12 dated 17.7.2008 of the first respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner (item No.10) alone and direct the first respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the approve list of Assistant Director of Agriculture of the year 2007 with all service benefits on par with the junior of the petitioner within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Visvalingam For Respondents : Mrs.S.Bharathi Government Advocate O R D E R The petitioner R.Dhanabalan has filed the present Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Government letter No.87/AD1/2008-12 dated 17.07.2008 of the first respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioner (item No.10) alone and direct the first respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the approved list of Assistant Director of Agriculture of the year 2007 with all service benefits on par with the junior of the petitioner within a specified time. 2.Heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name was not included in the list of Assistant Directors of Agriculture drawn for the year 2007, since the crucial date was 31.03.2007 and on the said date, he was fully qualified to be included in the said post of Assistant Directors of Agriculture. But for the reason that he suffered a punishment of censure, as per the proceedings dated 21.05.2007 by the Director of Agriculture, Chennai the respondents refused to include his name. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the non-inclusion of the name in the approved list of Assistant Director of Agriculture for the year 2007, with the request that the punishment of censure awarded to the petitioner is subsequent to the crucial date of 31.03.2007. Further, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Government on the ground that awarding of censure is at the time of drawl of the list. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner has put twofold submissions before this Court. Firstly, the pendency of proceeding under Rule 17(a) (Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) will not be a par in inclusion of any incumbent in the panel for promotion. Law has been settled by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, in humpty number of Judgments. However, in the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another Vs. V.Rani reported in 2011(3) CTC 129 in paragraph 8(5) it has been held as follows: “........ 8(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.”.......... Therefore, when the pendency of 17(a) proceeding cannot be a par for inclusion of name, the respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner for his inclusion. Even after the said 17(a) proceeding came to be finalized by issuing the order of punishment of censure, as per the above mentioned rule of Full Bench judgment reported in 2011(3) CTC 129, the case of the petitioner cannot be denied. 6.In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, though made an attempt to defend the non-inclusion of the petitioner's name, on the ground that the punishment of censure was awarded to the petitioner subsequent to the crucial date, however, even before the panel was prepared, the 17(a) proceeding was pending cannot be a reason. As I have mentioned above, the pendency of 17(a) proceeding cannot be a par for inclusion of the petitioner's name. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings, refusing to include the name of the petitioner in the list of Assistant Director of Agriculture for the year 2007 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 7.It is needless to mention that the first respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the approved list. Since, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 approved list was already implemented, the first respondent is directed to consider and provide all the benefits on par with from the date his junior who was promoted to the promotional post within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. am Sd/- Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government,Agriculture Deparment,Chief Secretariat,Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture,Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. W.P.(MD)No.10689 of 2011 Dated:20.10.2011 3P/3C RPB : 25.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/