Judgment :- The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent in the Transport Department. He joined as Junior Assistant in the Transport Department on 10.03.1975 and lateron promoted as Assistant on 06.02.1984. When he was working as Assistant in R.T.Os Office, Coimbatore, he was placed under suspension on 011. 1984 and a charge memo dated 13.01.1993 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated Government fund. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation as early as on 15.02.1993, the department prolonged the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Original Application in No.2511 of 1994 to quash the said charge memo. The Tribunal by order dated 02.09.1996, directed the Transport commissioner, Madras-the second respondent, to complete the enquiry and pass final orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Inspite of the directions given by the Tribunal, the enquiry was not completed . In the meanwhile, the second respondent without preparing a regular panel for promotion to the post of Superintendents, promoted 34 persons as Superintendents and most of the persons included in the panel are juniors to the petitioner. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Chamanlal Goyal reported in ( 1995 2 SCC 570 ), the petitioner submitted that the delay in disposing of the disciplinary proceedings has seriously prejudiced the petitioners chances of getting his name included in the panel for promotion and therefore, prayed for appropriate directions to the respondents to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendents in the Transport Department. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. The allegations contained in the charge memo dated 13.01.1993 are as follows: (i) Thiru P. Ramasamy formerly Assistant in the R.T.Office, Madras (South) now Assistant, Nagercoil Transport Office, Tiruppur while he was engaged in the collection of tax in respect of non-transport vehicles in the R.T.Office, Madras (South) failed to bring to account a sum of Rs.280/-as detailed in the Annexure and thereby he is responsible for the misappropriation of the said amount causing loss of revenue to Government. ii) Thiru P. Ramasamy failed to perform his duties and responsibilities properly and to maintain absolute integrity which is violative of the provision of rule 29 of the Government servants conduct rules." 4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was facing a serious charge of misappropriation of Government money and also causing loss of revenue to the Government. A perusal of the charge further reveals that the respondent had failed to perform his duties and responsibilities properly and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity. While disposing of the Original Application challenging the charge memo, the Tribunal by its order dated 02.09.1996 had directed the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It could be seen from the material on record that the petitioner after waiting for a months time, had rushed to the Tribunal for relief of inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion as Superintendent. When the petitioner is involved in a serious charge of misappropriation, and loss of revenue to the government, he cannot as a matter of right seek for inclusion in the panel for promotion. Charge of misappropriation being grave in nature, if proved on evidence, would entail even major penalty. It is well settled that the pendency of charge memo can always be held against the government servant for promotion to higher post. 5. Reference can also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in C.O. Arumugam and others VS State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (1991 Supple (2) SCC 199), wherein the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: "The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principles. The promotion of persons against whom charge has been framed in the disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. if found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted." Considering the gravity of the charges the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 6. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. if found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted." Considering the gravity of the charges the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.