Judgment 1. The petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (shortly, TWAD Board) on deputation with the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (shortly, CMDA). 2. The respondent issued a panel dated 5.1.2012 of Assistant Executive Engineers fit for promotion as Executive Engineer for the year 2011-2012. The name of the petitioner was not included in the panel, while the names of 75 Assistant Executive Engineers were included. 17 Assistant Executive Engineers including the petitioner were either overlooked or deferred for various reasons. The name of the petitioner was not included on the ground that CBI enquiry is pending against him and hence his name was deferred. The petitioner gave a representation dated 10.1.2012 to consider his case for promotion for the post of Executive Engineer by including him in the panel at an appropriate place. However, he did not receive any reply from the respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the panel dated 5.1.2012 and to direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer by placing him at Serial No.11 in the panel. According to him based on the panel, 20 persons were given posting orders as Executive Engineers by order dated 6.1.2012. 3. The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that since the CBI Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai sent a letter dated 8.12.2011 informing the respondent that a case has been registered by CBI/ ACB/Chennai in RC 47(A)/2011 against the wife of the petitioner who is employed as Scientist E Society for Applied Microwave Electronics Engineering and Research, Taramani, Chennai (SAMEER) and also the petitioner, who is employed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the respondent TWAD Board for possession of disproportionate assets, the name of the petitioner was not included in the panel of the Assistant Executive Engineers fit for promotion as Executive Engineer for the year 2011-12. Subsequently, another letter dated 23.2.2012 was sent by the CBI to the respondent informing that the case is in the early stage of investigation and apart from the assets mentioned in the FIR, some more assets which have not been reported by the petitioner and his family members to the competent authorities have been identified and efforts are underway to establish the ownership of the various Flats/ Housing Plots/ Houses/Agricultural Lands owned by them. It is further stated that there are no specific guidelines available, when the case registered by CBI is pending investigation, relating to the procedure to be adopted as to whether the person facing CBI investigation shall be included in the panel for promotion. Thus, the counter affidavit sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no charge sheet was filed in the criminal case and the case was only at the stage of investigation, the petitioner should have been included in the panel dated 5.1.2012 of Assistant Executive Engineers fit for promotion as Executive Engineer for the year 2011-2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a letter No. 248, P & A R Department dated 20.10.1997 of the Tamil Nadu Government. According to the instructions in the said letter, there was no bar for inclusion of a person in the panel if a criminal is under investigation and no charge sheet was filed. He also relied on the following judgments:- 1. Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others ( 1991 (4) SCC 109 ) 2. Gurpreet Singh Bhullar and Another Vs. Union of India ( AIR 2006 SC 1484 ) 3. State of M.P. Vs. J.S. Bansal and Another ( AIR 1998 SC 1015 ) 4. Coal India Ltd., and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra ( AIR 2007 SC 1706 ) 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the TWAD Board made her submissions based on the counter affidavit. She submitted that there are no specific guidelines relating to the procedures that are to be followed when a CBI case is pending investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that an appeal against the order of the Managing Director can be made to the Board. Thereafter, a revision shall lie to the Government as per the TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972. Hence, the petitioner can avail the appellate remedy available under the Regulations. She also submitted that the judgments relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand, since those cases considered the relevant service rules in those cases and those judgments are applicable to the facts of those cases. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 8. She also submitted that the judgments relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand, since those cases considered the relevant service rules in those cases and those judgments are applicable to the facts of those cases. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 8. The petitioner relied on a letter No. 248, P&AR Department dated 20.10.1997 of the Tamil Nadu Government. I am not able to understand as to how the letter issued by the Tamil Nadu Government would apply to the employees of the TWAD Board. The petitioner is not a Government servant. Admittedly, the petitioner is governed by TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972. In fact the impugned panel states that 17 Assistant Executive Engineers are overlooked or deferred for the reasons such as 9(b) charges/ DVAC case/ punishment are framed / imposed against them. The impugned order only refers to the charges framed under Regulation 9 (b) of TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972. Therefore, one shall look into the service regulations as to whether the employee of the TWAD Board could seek to include his name, even if CBI investigation of serious allegations is pending against him . 9. In this case, FIR was registered on 30.11.2011 alleging that the petitioner and his wife amassed pecuniary resources and assets disproportionate to known sources of income, which the accused cannot be satisfactorily accounted for during the tenure. The details of properties both movable and immovable acquired by them at various places in and around Chennai and other places in Tamil Nadu are given in the FIR. The details of the properties acquired by the petitioner and his wife are as follows:- 10. The CBI wrote a letter to the Joint Chief Engineer dated 14.3.2012 to the respondent stating that the petitioner may be instructed to furnish the details relating to the properties dealt with by the petitioner and their family members. In these circumstances, the name of the petitioner was not included in the panel dated 5.1.2012 of the Assistant Executive Engineer fit for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. 11. The petitioner was not able to show any provisions in the TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972 in support of his submissions. He relied on the judgments of the Apex Court. 11. The petitioner was not able to show any provisions in the TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972 in support of his submissions. He relied on the judgments of the Apex Court. I am not going to deal with those judgments and I am not expressing any opinion since that may cause prejudice to the petitioner or the respondent, in view of the order to be passed hereunder. 12. The relevant statutory regulations are extracted at page 115 of the typed set of papers of the petitioner. The relevant passage is found at page No. 117 of the typed set of papers. Clause 9 (4) and 9(5) of the TWAD Board Service Regulations, 1972 at page Immovable Properties:- Movable Properties:- 117 of the typed set of papers are extracted hereunder:- "(4) For promotion to posts of Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Chief Engineer of the Board shall prepare a list of all eligible candidates arranged in the order of seniority for consideration having regard to their efficiency-cum-seniority showing in the list their names, present designation, present pay, age, qualifications and experience and forward the same to the Managing Director with their confidential reports. The Managing Director after scrutinising the lists and the confidential reports will select and appoint the candidates in respect of the post of Executive Engineers. In respect of Superintending Engineers, the Managing Director will make his recommendations to the Board for Selection and based on the selection by the Board he will issue appointment orders. (B.P.Ms.No.320 dated 10.9.1998). The appointment of Chief Engineer of the Board will be made subject to the approval of the Government. (5) No appeal shall lie against the decision of the Selection Committee in regard to direct recruitment. An appeal shall, however, lie to the Board for appointments made by promotion on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Board shall dispose of such appeals on merits and its decision shall be final. With regard to appointment by promotion approved by the Board, a revision shall lie to Government. " 13. As per the Service Regulations that are enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, an appeal remedy is provided to the petitioner against the decision of the respondent in the matter of promotion. With regard to appointment by promotion approved by the Board, a revision shall lie to Government. " 13. As per the Service Regulations that are enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the petitioner, an appeal remedy is provided to the petitioner against the decision of the respondent in the matter of promotion. It could also been seen that further revision against the decision of the Board lies with the Government, if the Board decides against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has both appellate and revisional remedies. In view of the availability of the alternate remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate authority.