Judgment :- (PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to implement the order of the Tribunal issued in O.A.No.1956 of 2004 dated 12.05.2004 within a reasonable time and promote the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category – I and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits at par with his juniors.) This writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondent to implement the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A.No.1956 of 2004 dated 12.05.2004 and to promote the petitioner as a Deputy Superintendent of Police Category I with all service and other monetary benefits. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police on 13.10.1976 and subsequently promoted as Inspector of Police on 07.12.1987. A showcause notice was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent on 01.04.1998 for the purpose of reopening the charge which was dropped earlier in order to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement. That was the charge alleging that the petitioner has colluded with some bootleggers in respect of which an Enquiry Officer was appointed and conducted an enquiry who held that the charge was proved however the disciplinary authority having deferred from the report of the Enquiry Officer has dropped the charges. It was to reopen the same the said showcause notice was given by the second respondent on 01.04.1998. On petitioner approaching the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filling O.A.No.4836 of 1998, the said showcause notice was issued by the second respondent was set aside against which the second respondent filed W.P.No.35323 of 2002 to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 04.03.2002. This court has set aside the order of the Tribunal on 04.08.2003 however directing the petitioner to give explanation for the showcause notice issued by the second respondent. The petitioner has accordingly submitted his reply on 21.01.2004 based on which the second respondent has imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect on 04.02.2004. This court has set aside the order of the Tribunal on 04.08.2003 however directing the petitioner to give explanation for the showcause notice issued by the second respondent. The petitioner has accordingly submitted his reply on 21.01.2004 based on which the second respondent has imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect on 04.02.2004. That punishment was challenged by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filling O.A.No.654 of 2004 and the Tribunal has set aside the said punishment on 15.04.2004 and in fact the Government has also accepted the said order of the Tribunal and passed a G.O.(D)No.58 Home (Pol.IV) Department dated 19.05.2005 giving effect to the said order. In another case in S.C.No.396 of 1998 dated 18.11.1998 Deputy Inspector of Police, Villupuram has imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for one year on the petitioner, the petitioner challenged the said punishment and filed O.A.No.4965 of 1999 and the Tribunal by an order dated 08.04.2002 has set aside the punishment which has become final. In the mean time, on the curtail date for preparation of panel for the year 1999 - 2000 for the promotion to the next post for year 1999, while the names of juniors of the petitioner were included, the petitioner’s name did not find place. The reason given for the same was the pendancy of another disciplinary proceedings in P.R.No.105 of 1998 and also the suspension order that was the case wherein the Deputy Inspector of Police, Villupuram has imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from service on the ground that the petitioner has not attended duty due to the reason that he has undergo a pilgrim to Mekka which was against the said order of compulsory retirement dated 1.05.1998, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.4563 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order dated 04.03.2002 has set aside the said order which was challenged by the respondent before this court in W.P.No.11618 of 2003 and same is still pending, admittedly there is no order of stay against the Tribunal order. The petitioner has also filed O.A.No. 4800 of 2001 for a direction against the respondent to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police and the said application was allowed by the Tribunal on 08.04.2002 with a direction to the respondents consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the respondent in W.P.No.25447 of 2003 before this court. Even though while admitting the writ petition there was a stay of the order of the Tribunal, admittedly the said order was vacated by this court on 21.07.2006. Since the punishment have been set aside and only the respondents have filed the writ petitions in two cases which are pending, the petitioner has ultimately moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1956 of 2004 for a direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion to post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by transfer of service. While allowing the said O.A. the Tribunal by an order dated 12.05.2004 has passed an order, which as follows: “para 6� According to the petitioner the order of the Tribunal dated 12.05.2004 has become final, since the respondents have not challenging that order. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction against the respondent to implement the order of the Tribunal dated 12.05.2004. Mr.Venkataramani learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while narrating the entire facts has stated above as also contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case and especially when all the charges were framed against the petitioner have been held in favour of the petitioner exonerating him from all the charges. There is absolutely no impeadment on the part of the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the panel 1999 - 2000 the date when he was eligible. When the matter came up for admission this court has directed the learned Special Government Pleader to take notice and today Mr.G.Shankaran, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in instructions submit that in fact the second respondent has sent proposal to the first respondent on 14.09.2005 a proposal for promotion to the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police as a temporary measure. He would contend that the said proposal has been sent in accordance rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, inasmuch as the writ petitions filed by the respondents are pending before this court challenging the various orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in which the punishment imposed against the petitioner have been set aside, it should be taken that the charges are pending and therefore the respondents would promote the petitioner by way of a temporary measure in accordance with the said rule 39. That apart the learned Special Government Pleader has no answer for the factual statements narrated above. Since admittedly all the charges have been set aside by the Tribunal and what are pending in this court are the writ petitions against the orders of the Tribunal and admittedly it is also admitted that there are no orders of stay by this court against the orders of the Tribunal so as to presume that the charges are still pending as on date. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Special Government Pleader and perused the entire records. As it is correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on which the above facts have been enumerated which are not in dispute. It remains the fact that as on date the petitioner is not suffering any punishment. In fact the said fact has been in detail considered by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in the order dated 12.05.2004 passed in O.A.No.1956 of 2004 by giving direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the Deputy Superintendent of Police post for the year 1999 - 2000 if the petitioner was otherwise eligible. The order of the said Tribunal has not been quashed in any were. The Tribunal has considered about all charges and therefore it cannot be stated that the petitioner is not qualified. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the steps are taken temporary promotion of the petitioner is also unsustainable. The order of the said Tribunal has not been quashed in any were. The Tribunal has considered about all charges and therefore it cannot be stated that the petitioner is not qualified. The contention of the learned Special Government Pleader that the steps are taken temporary promotion of the petitioner is also unsustainable. In this regard a reference to rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rule relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is relevant: “page 39 a,b,c and d, etc.� Therefore, a reading of the said provision relied upon by the learned Special Government Pleader contemplate the cases were due to emergency of vacancy has been filled up immediately or in cases where the regular promotion will involve excessive expenditure on traveling allowances or exceptional administrative inconveniences, the appointing authority is empower to promote any person possessing qualifications from the lower category temporarily and such person who is temporarily promoted will be replaced as soon as the regular numbers of service are appointed in accordance with law. The Rule 39(D) enables the appointing authority to promote any officer against whom an enquiry into an allegation or corruption or misconduct is pending to promote him pending enquiry into charges against him. It is relevant to point out that under this clause the competent authority has also empower by giving discretion to make regular promotion in suitable cases. As I have stated earlier, the facts and circumstances shown that there is no enquiry of allegation or corruption is pending against the petitioner and in fact after completion of the enquiry, the charges have been quashed and in one case the Government itself has issued an order implementing the order of Tribunal wherein the punishment of postponement of increment for three years with cumulative effect with effect from 04.02.2006 was set aside by the Tribunal. In view of the said factual circumstances, I do not think that the respondents can be permitted to make a temporary promotion of the petitioner especially in the circumstances that the Tamil Nadu Adminstrative Tribunal in the final order dated 12.05.2004 passed in O.A.No.1956 of 2004 has given a clear direction stating that the petitioner should be promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the panel of promotion for the year 1999 - 2000. In view of the above said facts and circumstances this is not even a case which compared to a promotion given pending disciplinary proceedings and without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the State of Punjab and others Vs. Chamanlal Goyal 1995(2) S.C.C.570 In view of the above said facts and circumstances the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1956 of 2004 dated 12.05.2004 and promote the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police accordingly if there are no other legal impeadment and such order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.is closed.