JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.2818 of 2000, seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 22.02.2000 and 01.03.2000, so as to include his name in the panel for the year 1999-2000 in the appropriate place. 2. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo, containing two charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, one for the irregularities in the purchase of Drugs and Medicines during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 and another charge for an irregular purchase of surgical items during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95. Subsequently, the petitioner was also punished with a punishment of withholding of increment for a period of 6 moths without cumulative effect. Since the petitioner had suffered with a punishment passed under Rule 17(b), the name of the petitioner was not considered in the panel for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer, in view of G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.93 r/w Government Letter No.248/ P & AR Department, dated 20.10.97. Hence, his representations dated 22.02.2000 and 01.03.2000 were sought to be considered on merits. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4. Since the said charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) was pending till the date of his retirement, the petitioners name could not be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Officer. When the charge memo dated 22.03.96 was issued to the petitioner for having a serious allegation of irregularities in the purchase of Drugs and Medicines, while he was attached in the Medical Stores at Government General Hospital, during the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 and in view of huge amount involved in the purchase of drugs and medicines at Government General Hospital, the Government also entrusted the investigation to the department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and thereby, the said investigation agency also, after conducting the investigation, found that the petitioner was involved in the irregularities in the purchase of drugs and medicines to the extent of Rs.1,09,744.70/-. Therefore, based on the report submitted by the department of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, a charge memo dated 22.03.96 was withdrawn and revised charge memo was issued in Ref.12/Addl.DME(A)/SCII/2/95, dated 30.06.99. 5. Therefore, based on the report submitted by the department of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, a charge memo dated 22.03.96 was withdrawn and revised charge memo was issued in Ref.12/Addl.DME(A)/SCII/2/95, dated 30.06.99. 5. In fact, the petitioner was not considered by the panel drawing authority, since the two charges initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 were pending and a punishment of stoppage of increment for 6 months was awarded to him. Therefore, in view of the pendency of the departmental proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, the expectation of the petitioner for selection of his name in the panel cannot be considered, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.93, which states that in cases where specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal cases, promotion of such persons shall be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. 6. In that view of the matter, in view of G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 18.10.93, the prayer sought for by the petitioner, cannot be considered. Accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. In result, the present writ petition is allowed. No Costs.