Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 27.10.1999 in Memo No.031851/699/Admn.11(1)/99-4 and direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner below the name of Mr.K.A.Syedbear (serial No.19) and above the name of Mr.M.Subbarayan (Serial No.20) in the panel of approved list of Commercial Inspectors to the promotion posts of Foreman First Grade drawn by the first respondent dated 27.10.1999 in Memo No.031851/699/Admn.11(1)/99—4. 2. In the affidavit in support of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner joined as casual labourer on 16.6.1971 in the respondent department; that he was promoted as Helper on 1.1.1977 and then as a Commercial Assistant on 27.6.1979; that he was promoted as Assistant Commercial Inspector on 31.3.1990; and that as Commercial Inspector on 21.12.1994. While he was working as Assistant Commercial Inspector, his immediate senior was one K.A.Syedbear and his immediate junior was one M.Subbarayan. This seniority was maintained throughout. Whileso, in the year 1999, a panel was prepared for promotion to the post of Foreman - Grade I. In that list, petitioner's name was not included since charges were framed against him and departmental proceedings was pending. Subsequently, K.A.Syedbear and M.Subbarayan were promoted to the post of Foreman – Grade I. The charges framed against the petitioner was dropped on 17.2.2000. In spite of that petitioner was not given promotion as Foreman – Grade I. Petitioner made representations but of no avail. Petitioner also filed an appeal against non-inclusion of his name in the panel, but without any success. Hence the present writ petition to quash the order refusing his name to be included in the panel and also to promote him and restore his original seniority. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and in that it is stated that the petitioner's case was considered to be included in the panel in the year 1999. But the Promotional Committee did not recommend his name for promotion to the post of Foreman–Grade I, as he was involved in a criminal case and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. As per the Board Proceeding No.316 dated 27.12.1995, 'where specific charges have been framed and charge sheet has been filed in criminal case, promotion/appointment of such cases shall be deferred till the proceedings are concluded'. Therefore his name was not included in 1999 panel. As per the Board Proceeding No.316 dated 27.12.1995, 'where specific charges have been framed and charge sheet has been filed in criminal case, promotion/appointment of such cases shall be deferred till the proceedings are concluded'. Therefore his name was not included in 1999 panel. The disciplinary proceeding did not come to an end before the promotion was made. Therefore, promotion was given as per 1999 panel and the request of the petitioner was rejected by the Chief Engineer. Then the petitioner approached the High Court by filing W.P.No.7697 of 2000 and this Court directed the Superintending Engineer to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass orders thereon within three months. Consequently, the petitioner was informed that his name would be included in the next panel for promotion to the post of Foreman-Grade I and promotion will be ordered as per seniority and existing rules. At the time of preparation of earlier approved panel dated 27.10.1999, petitioner's name was not included because disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner. Subsequent panel was prepared and approved on 9.4.2001 and petitioner's name was included in that and his name was considered for promotion as Foreman–Grade I. As such, he would have been given ranking in the panel dated 9.4.2001 and he could not have been given ranking in the earlier panel. Hence this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Admittedly, petitioner is senior to M.Subbarayan and junior to K.A.Syedbear. In the year 1999, his name was not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Foreman–Grade I, since there was a disciplinary proceeding pending against him. Admittedly, the said proceeding was dropped on 17.2.2000. Even according to the Board Proceeding No.316, referred to in the counter affidavit, promotion of the petitioner was deferred till the disciplinary proceeding comes to an end. When the disciplinary proceeding concluded on 17.2.2000, his name should have been included in the panel and promotion should have been given with retrospective effect. But, for some reason or the other, respondents did not think that he was duty bound to give promotion to the petitioner. On the other hand, a specific stand has been taken in the counter that his name was included in 2001 panel. Even then, he was not promoted till date. The panel prepared for promotion will be valid only for one year. On the other hand, a specific stand has been taken in the counter that his name was included in 2001 panel. Even then, he was not promoted till date. The panel prepared for promotion will be valid only for one year. It is not known how such a statement is made in the counter filed by the respondent Officer like the Superintending Engineer. Petitioner was not promoted even though charges were dropped. Even though there is Board Proceeding to the effect that his name would not be included in the panel for promotion, that shall be deferred till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. But that rules were not followed in this case. Immediately when the departmental proceeding was dropped, petitioner should have been promoted with retrospective effect restoring his original seniority. But that was not done in this case. 5. When departmental proceedings are initiated against a person in service, his promotional opportunities are deferred pending disposal of the departmental action. A person in service can be reduced in rank only on the basis of proved charges, in a departmental proceedings. If departmental proceedings did not end in punishment, then he automatically gets the benefit, which was denied only because of the pending departmental proceedings. If the stand taken by the respondents is to be accepted, it will lead to chaotic condition and for some reason or the other, it is possible for the authorities to initiate departmental proceedings against the prospective candidates and on that ground promotion of that candidate would be deferred. This is not only contrary to the rules but also against the principles of equity and justice. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to promote the petitioner with retrospective effect placing him in his original seniority. The petitioner is also entitled for all backwages. This order shall be complied with within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.