Judgment :- 1. The petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer in the Highways & Rural Works Department on 15.10.1980. He was sent on deputation to Panchayat Union and worked for 4-1/2 months in Mangalore Village and thereafter worked in Nallur Panchayat Union from 01.04.1981 to 31.03.1982. During that period, he had worked under the Assistant Divisional Engineer of the Panchayat Union. Due to the heavy rain and cyclone in 1983, out of 82 culverts, 6 culverts were washed away. Therefore, a charge memo was issued on 29.06.1984 and the following charges were made. "Charge 1: That due to defective preparation of the estimates and defective construction of six culverts, the culverts were damaged, outflanked and washed out due to the reasons outlined under each and he failed to adopt the norms prescribed for the preparation of these estimates. Charge 2: That he executed substandard works of the above culverts and due to defective execution, heavy loss to Government have occurred." 2. The petitioner submited his explanation, denying the charges on 29.08.1987. Along with the petitioner, the Junior Engineer, Thiru.Balasubramaniam and the Assistant Divisional Engineer Thiru.G.Munusamy, were also issued charge memos. 3. The enquiry officer, who enquired into the matter, recorded his finding on 20.02.1993 that the charges were proved. Though the enquiry officer recorded his finding in 1993, no action was taken thereafter. In the case of Assistant Divisional Engineer, G.O.Ms.No.18/Highways (RLI-1) Department dated 10.09.1996 was issued, imposing certain punishment. However, in the case of petitioner, it was delayed for seven years and ultimately G.O.(3D)/108/Highways HR 1 Department dated 07.09.2000 was issued imposing the punishment of censure and also ordering of recovery of a sum of Rs.30,654/-. 4. In view of the said punishment, the name of the petitioner was not included in the panel for the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer for the year 2000. He made a representation dated 12.09.2000 to the first respondent to include his name in the panel. However, no order was passed. Hence, he filed the Original Application in O.A.No.5339 of 2001(W.P.No.49574 of 2006) praying for a direction to include the name of the petitioner in the appropriate place in the panel for the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer for the year 1999-2000 and to promote him as Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted. 5. No counter affidavit is filed. 6. 5. No counter affidavit is filed. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the enquiry was over in 1993, no final order was passed for more than seven years. The final order was passed only in the year 2000, by issuance of G.O.(3D)/108/Highways HR 1 Department dated 07.09.2000. While the final order was passed in the case of Assistant Divisional Engineer in 1996, the final order was passed only in 2000 in the case of petitioner, for which, he could not be made to suffer. I have already pointed out that though the enquiry was only in 1993, the punishment was imposed after 7 years only in the year 2000. For this delay on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be penalised in respect of promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2011(3) CTC 129 (The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range Vs. V.Rani, the punishment of censure is not a bar for inclusion of Government employee in the panel for promotion. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent could be directed to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 12.09.2000 in the light of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioners representation dated 12.09.2000 on merits and in accordance with law, in the light of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court and taking into account the fact that there was a delay in finalising the disciplinary proceedings for which the petitioner should not be made to suffer in respect of promotion, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There is no order as to costs.