Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 24.10.1966 and promoted as Assistant on 30.01.1980, as Extension Officer on 30.01.1994 and as Deputy Block Development Officer on 12.07.1999. The petitioner thereafter was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer for the panel year 2000 – 2001. The petitioner was accordingly placed at Sl.No.13 in the panel of the year 2000 – 2001. 2. The petitioner could not be promoted against the available vacancy, as the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules on 22.08.2000. It was due to pendency of enquiry under Rule 17(b), the petitioner was not promoted, whereas persons juniors to the petitioner in the approved panel were promoted during the life of approved panel. 3. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was held guilty, but imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect; i.e. minor punishment. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order and the appeal was partly allowed and the punishment of stoppage of increment of three months without cumulative effect was modified to minor punishment of Censure. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of minor punishment of Censure could not come in the way of promotion of an employee, who was found eligible for promotion and whose promotion, was withheld merely because of pendency of departmental proceedings. 6. The learned Special Govt. Pleader opposed the writ petition on the ground that promotion of the petitioner was rightly withheld, in view of the fact that the petitioner was facing departmental enquiry under 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules on the charge of serious misconduct. The petitioner was held guilty of charges and not exonerated, to claim promotion. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to promotion as of right, but only entitled to be considered for promotion as and when the fresh panel is to be prepared taking into consideration the minor punishment awarded to the petitioner. 7. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. It is not disputed that the petitioner was found eligible for promotion and was placed at Sl.No.13 in the approved panel. 8. 7. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. It is not disputed that the petitioner was found eligible for promotion and was placed at Sl.No.13 in the approved panel. 8. The only ground for withholding promotion of the petitioner was pendency of proceedings under Rule 17(b) on the charge of serious misconduct. In the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of minor lapse, which resulted in imposition of minor punishment of Censure. The punishment of Censure cannot be a ground to deny promotion to an employee who was otherwise found eligible and was empanelled for promotion. 9. Once a person lower in merit stood promoted, the similar benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner only on the ground of imposition of minor punishment of Censure. The object of withholding promotion during the pendency of departmental proceedings is to see the outcome of the proceedings to see whether an employee is guilty of serious misconduct which may result in imposition of major penalty to debar the promotion. A minor punishment of Censure cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the eligible employee. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner with effect from the date (i.e. 7.10.2000) when his immediate junior in the approved panel was so promoted, with all consequential benefits. 11. The needful be done within a period of two months of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.