JUDGMENT :- 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order issued in G.O.(2D).No.658 Revenue (Ser.2(2)) Department dated 30.11.2006 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the service of the Revenue Department as Junior Assistant in the year 1972 in Salem District. He was promoted as Assistant and thereafter, as Deputy Tahsildar. While the petitioner was serving as Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Edapadi, he was eligible to get promotion as Tahsildar in the year 2002. The petitioner's name was deferred, due to the issuance of the charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules on 21.11.2000, alleging the petitioner has not followed Section 23-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1896 as amended by Central Act 1 of 1984 and the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1997, while discharging his duty as Land Acquisition Officer. The other charges are consequential to the said allegation. Again, on 30.11.2006, the petitioner's name was not included in the panel prepared for the year 2005, as there was pendency of charges under Rule 17(b). Final order imposing a punishment was passed on 30.11.2006. 3. According to the petitioner, due to the pendency of the said charge memo and the currency of the punishment, he was denied promotion as Tahsildar, even though the petitioner's juniors were promoted during the panel prepared in the year 2002 and subsequently. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.39477 of 2006, before this Court with a prayer to quash the charge memo dated 21.11.2000 and for a direction to promote him as Tahsildar with retrospective effect. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.10.2006 with a direction to the respondent to finalise the disciplinary proceedings and with consequential directions. Thereafter, the impugned punishment was imposed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having been proceeded under charge memo dated 21.11.2000 for not following Section 23-A of the Land Acquisition Act and the said Section 23-A of the Act having held as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in RAJASHERIFF Vs. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having been proceeded under charge memo dated 21.11.2000 for not following Section 23-A of the Land Acquisition Act and the said Section 23-A of the Act having held as unconstitutional by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in RAJASHERIFF Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ( 2001 (4) CTC 577 ), the charges framed against the petitioner itself is not maintainable and all the consequential disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed are to be declared as invalid. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the charge memo was issued on 21.11.2000, and at that time the Section 23-A of the Land Acquisition Act was very much available and the Division Bench of this Court declared the said Section as unconstitutional only on 22.12.2000 and therefore, the charge is maintainable. 6. The fact remains that the petitioner was proceeded, based on the charge memo dated 21.11.2000 after the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 22.12.2000 and the punishment was also imposed only thereafter. When the earlier order was passed by this Court on 18.10.2006, made in W.P.No.39477 of 2006, the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 22.12.2000, was not cited before the learned Judge. Therefore, this Court gave a direction to pass final order particularly taking note of the completion of the enquiry. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that no appeal against the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 22.12.2000, is filed and the said decision has become final. 8. In the light of the above undisputed facts, particularly, the Division Bench of this Court having held that Section 23-A of the Land Acquisition Act as unconstitutional, the charges framed against the petitioner for violating the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act and the consequential proceedings, including the punishment imposed, are unsustainable. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking notional promotion from the date on which his juniors were given promotion as Tahsildar. The petitioner is entitled to get the increments which were ordered to be withheld. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking notional promotion from the date on which his juniors were given promotion as Tahsildar. The petitioner is entitled to get the increments which were ordered to be withheld. Necessary orders are directed to be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so that the petitioner will be in a position to get revised pension as he has already retired from service. The writ petition is allowed with above directions. No costs.