Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Senior Inspector to the Junior Inspector. 2. The petitioner joined the Co-operative department in the State of Tamil Nadu as temporary Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies on 6.12.1985. The service of the petitioner was regularised and he was promoted as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies on 27.7.1998. 3. The respondents without issuing show cause notice or giving any reasons, ordered the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Senior Inspector to Junior Inspector. 4. The impugned order of reversion has been challenged on the following grounds: (i) That the impugned order of reversion though affecting civil rights of the petitioner, has been passed without following the principles of natural justice and is otherwise, contrary to the statutory rules laying down the procedure for reverting the employee from the substantive post. (ii) That the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order imposing major punishment which was still pending and therefore, till the decision of the appeal, the petitioner could not be reverted to the post of Junior Inspector. (iii) That the impugned order suffers from vise of discrimination as other two employees charged with same misconduct, were exonerated of the charges, whereas the petitioner was singled out to hold him guilty. (iv) That the order of reversion has been passed belatedly as the impugned order of reversion was passed after two years of imposing major punishment in pursuance to the proved misconduct. 5. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner was not included in the panel for promotion due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules. 6. It was in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal that the case of promotion was considered subject to final outcome of proceedings under rule 17(b) of the Rules. 7. The order passed by the learned Tribunal was on the face of it illegal, as it was not open to the learned Tribunal to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by ignoring the statutory bar under the service rules. 8. 7. The order passed by the learned Tribunal was on the face of it illegal, as it was not open to the learned Tribunal to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by ignoring the statutory bar under the service rules. 8. However, the learned Tribunal while directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, clarified that it shall be subject to final outcome of departmental enquiry. 9. The impugned order of reversion was passed in view of the punishment awarded to the petitioner in departmental enquiry under rule 17(b) of the Rules. The petitioner was considered for promotion by ignoring pending proceedings, in view of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, but the promotion of the petitioner was subject to final outcome of the departmental enquiry. 10. In this background of the matter, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 11. The submission of the petitioner is that the impugned order is violation of principles of natural justice and statutory rules cannot be accepted. The rule of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula, as the compliance of natural justice depends on the facts of each case. Once promotion of the petitioner was subject to final outcome of departmental proceedings, no show cause notice or further enquiry was necessary to revert the petitioner, as in view of the bar under statutory rule, he was not entitled to be considered for promotion pending departmental enquiry. 12. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal against the order of punishment was pending also cannot be a ground to set aside the order, as admittedly, the punishment is not stayed. In any case, as already mentioned above, in view of the statutory bar under the rules, the petitioner was not even eligible for being considered for promotion. 13. The plea of discrimination is also misconceived, as admittedly, two other employees were exonerated of the charges, whereas the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and imposed penalty, therefore, petitioner was not similarly situated with other employees to invoke Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. 13. The plea of discrimination is also misconceived, as admittedly, two other employees were exonerated of the charges, whereas the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and imposed penalty, therefore, petitioner was not similarly situated with other employees to invoke Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 14. The final contention of the learned counsel, that there was delay in passing of the impugned order cannot be a ground to challenge the order, as delay went to advantage of the petitioner, as he was unauthorisedly allowed to continue on the promoted post due to inaction on the part of the respondents in not taking the immediate steps to revert the petitioner. No merit. "Dismissed". No costs.