Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered the service, as a directly recruited Sub Inspector of Police, through a selection conducted by the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, on 21.4.1999. The petitioner had successfully completed his probation and his name had been brought into the `B’ list, on 21.4.1999. The petitioner had received 256 rewards and he did not have any adverse remark against his name. While so, a `C’ list containing the names of Sub Inspectors of Police fit for promotion, as Inspectors of Police, had been prepared, for the year 2010-2011. However, the name of the petitioner had not been included, while the names of his juniors, namely, K.K.Rajan Babu and Govindaraju and certain others had been included in the said list. They had been promoted as Inspectors of Police, by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 22.8.2011. No reasons had been communicated to the petitioner, with regard to the non-inclusion of his name in the said `C’ list. 3. It has been further stated that the only possible reason for the claim of the petitioner being deferred could be related to a report of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Cell, which had conducted a preliminary enquiry, relating to an allegation made against the petitioner by one Ramesh kumar, while he was serving as a Sub Inspector of Police, in the Video Piracy Cell, during the year 2007-2008. It had been learnt that there was a vigilance enquiry, based on which some recommendations had been made to place the case of the petitioner and the others connected with the matter, before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai. However, the proceedings said to have been initiated before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai, had not been served on the petitioner, either on the crucial date for the preparation of the `C' list, for the year 2010-2011, or on the date of its consideration, on 22.8.2011. As such, a mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings, before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai, especially, when such proceedings had not been served on the petitioner, cannot be shown as a ground to deny the promotion to the petitioner. As such, a mere initiation of disciplinary proceedings, before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai, especially, when such proceedings had not been served on the petitioner, cannot be shown as a ground to deny the promotion to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that, when the petitioner was serving in the Video Piracy Cell Dindigul unit, during the year 2007-2008, there was an allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe, by the petitioner. Hence, a detailed enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner and two others, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Tiruchirappali. Subsequently, the Government, in its letter, dated 5.1.2011, had ordered for an enquiry, to be conducted, by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai. In continuation of the guidelines issued, in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993, specific guidelines had been issued, in G.O.Ms.No.248, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 20.10.1997, relating to the pendency of a Vigilance Enquiry/charges. In Paragraph 4 (i) it has been clearly stated that the enquiry, by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, undertaken by the Department, or on the recommendations of the Vigilance Commissioner, is equivalent to charges framed under 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. In such circumstances, the name of the petitioner had not been included in the `C' list for promotion, as Inspector of Police, due to the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai. 5. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court a communication from the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirappali, dated 30.7.2012, stating that the relevant records relating to the petitioner and three others had been received by the Tribunal, only on 24.7.2012, and therefore, the charges had not been framed against the delinquent officers, till date. 6. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that, even though certain proceedings had been initiated on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai, and it had been transferred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tiruchirapalli, no charges had been framed against the petitioner, till date. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents to indicate that certain charges were pending against the petitioner, or that there had been a communication sent to the petitioner, relating to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Further, the government orders, in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993 and G.O.Ms.No.248, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 20.10.1997, had not been placed before this Court to show that certain guidelines had been issued, with regard to the pendency of a vigilance enquiry/charges. Since, no charges were pending against the petitioner, and as no enquiry proceedings had been initiated or communicated to the petitioner, either on the crucial date, or on the date of its consideration, on 22.8.2011, for the preparation of the `C' list, for the year 20102011, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the name of the petitioner, on par with those who had been considered, as per the `C’ list prepared for the year 2010-2011, for promotion as Inspector of Police, if the petitioner is found to be otherwise qualified for such promotion and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.