Judgment : The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer working at Kayathar Sub Division, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirunelveli. In the present writ petition, the petitioner wants a direction from this Court to the respondents to implement their Memo.No.12146/P1/32-1 (Secretariat Branch) dated 26.6.1992 in letter and spirit while the promotional panel is prepared by the Board and notwithstanding that there is a disciplinary action against the petitioner, he should be included in the panel for the post Executive Engineer. 2. Since thepetitioner has referred to the memo issued by the Board dated 26.6.1992, it is necessary to refer to the Circular dated 26.6.1992 wherein all the subordinate authorities were directed to keep in mind the service regulations of the Board, more particularly the service regulation No.106. The learned counsel, Mr. Sundareshan for Sun Associates had drawn attention of this Court to Regulation No.106(c), which reads as follows: "106(c) where it is necessary to appoint or promote an employee against whom an enquiry into allegations of corruption or misconduct is pending the appointing authority may appoint or promote him temporarily pending enquiry into the charges against him. The competent authority shall have discretion to make regular appointments or promotions in suitable cases.” 3. Therefore, the petitioner submits that despite the disciplinary proceedings against him, he is entitled for promotion to be promoted temporarily and the service regulations of the Board enures such a benefit. 4. It must be stated here that the petitioner had filed several other writ petitions before this Court challenging the disciplinary action taken against him, which related to a complaint of sexual harassment made by an Assistant Engineer and the petitioner was unsuccessful in stalling those proceedings and finally the said proceedings resulted in a punishment, imposed on him with three increments being postponed with cumulative effect. These orders are yet to be challenged. 5. It is suffice to state that when the panel is about to be prepared, the petitioner has not only faced with disciplinary action, which also finally ended in the petitioner being punished by the Board. Therefore, when the respondent/Board prepares a panel, they are fully aware of the service regulations, which enables any person to be included in the panel and the circumstances under which a persons name can be omitted. 6. Therefore, when the respondent/Board prepares a panel, they are fully aware of the service regulations, which enables any person to be included in the panel and the circumstances under which a persons name can be omitted. 6. At present, it is suffice to state that the writ petition is premature and the petitioner cannot get any anticipatory relief by getting a direction through this Court so as to have his name to be included in the panel. However, reference to Regulation 106 (c) is most inappropriate and one is not clear about such a regulation is valid or not. Because a perusal of the said regulation will clearly reveal that even for a person, who is facing a charge of corruption, there is no bar for including his name in the panel and also to be subsequently promoted. Such a provision found in regulations made by a Statutory Body is not only repugnant to any form of good governance but also it goes against the very concept of denial of promotion to the tainted persons. 7. It is suffice to point out that power of this Court to grant direction of this nature cannot be exercised when the petitioner is facing a serious departmental action that too a complaint of sexual harassment to subordinate woman employees and the Court cannot give any direction contrary to the rules. The reliance placed on the said regulation is highly inappropriate and such a regulation can never be enforced by the Court and the said regulation goes against the rule of law and good governance. 8. In this context, it will be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court Union of India v. Tejinder Singh (1991) 4 SCC 129 , wherein the Honble Supreme Court pulled up an order passed by the Tribunal in similar circumstances. The following passage found In para 4 of the Judgment is as follows: "The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Union of India, Ministry of Finance to consider the respondent for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, Level II, is set aside. The following passage found In para 4 of the Judgment is as follows: "The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Union of India, Ministry of Finance to consider the respondent for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, Level II, is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal we would like to record that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction whatever while dealing with a petition to quash the contemplated departmental enquiry against the respondent to make an interim order of this nature. We are also not satisfied as to the correctness of the view expressed by the Tribunal that a contemplated departmental inquiry or pendency of a departmental proceeding cannot be a ground for withholding consideration for promotion or the promotion itself. We are not aware of any rule or principle to warrant such a view. As at present advised, we do not subscribe to the view expressed by the Tribunal.” 9. In the light of the same, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Before concluding, it must be pointed out that since persons facing severe charges either of corruption or misconduct are often coming to this Court making reliance on Regulation No.106(c) it is for the Board to take appropriate steps to amend the said regulation so that it does not give room in future for any frivolous litigation of the present nature. Petition dismissed.