Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 2.5.1980 and was promoted as Assistant on 28.1.94. The petitioner was eligible for further promotion to the post of Superintendent in the year 1999-2000. The name of the petitioner was not included in the panel for promotion for the year 1999-2000 as disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were pending. On account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the name of the petitioner was not considered for the panel year 2000-2001 also. 2. The allegation against the petitioner was absence from duty from 14.12.1998 for more than a year. The petitioner challenged issuance of Charge Memo vide O.A. No.3340/2001. The learned Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application and set aside the charge memo dated 20.7.2000. 3. The petitioner filed a representation with the respondent for considering his case for promotion from the date his juniors were so promoted, in view of quashing of charge memo by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. No reply to the representation was received. Consequently, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the panel year 1999-2000 with all consequential benefits on par with the juniors of the petitioner who were promoted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion as the only ground for non inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion was the pendency of charge memo, which stood quashed. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would however, contend that the petitioner cannot claim promotion in the panel year 1999-2000 because as admittedly on the date of consideration of his case, a charge memo under Sec.17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was pending against the petitioner and therefore, in view of the statutory rules, the petitioner was not rightly included in the panel. 6. However, on consideration, I find this writ petition deserves to succeed. 6. However, on consideration, I find this writ petition deserves to succeed. Though the respondent was right in not including the name of the petitioner in the panel for promotion for the year 1999-2000 because of pendency of charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, at the same time the charge memo having been quashed, it was the duty of the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from due date i.e., his juniors were so promoted. The respondent further failed to perform statutory obligation in taking the decision on the representation filed by the petitioner. 7. The action of the respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion from due date i.e., the date his juniors were so promoted can therefore safely said to be arbitrary, thus violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. 8. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion for the panel year 1999-2000 and if found eligible, promote the petitioner with retrospective effect i.e., the date his juniors were so promoted with all consequential benefits. 9. The needful to be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.