Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging his non inclusion in the panel for promotion to the post of District Registrars for the year 2007-2008 and also seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him with effect from the date on which his immediate junior got promoted. 2. Heard Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in 1976 and promoted as Assistant in 1984. He was promoted as Sub-Registrar Grade II in 1995 and as Sub-Registrar Grade I in 1998. 4. The next avenue of promotion for the petitioner is to be post of District Registrar. As per seniority, his name came up for consideration in the panel of the year 2007-2008, for promotion to the post of District Registrar. The crucial date for the preparation of the panel of the year 2007-2008 was 1.4.2007. But unfortunately, the petitioner was inflicted with a penalty of postponement of increment for three months without cumulative effect by an order dated 2.8.2006. The normal date on which the increment was granted to the petitioner is the first of April every year. Therefore, the penalty inflicted by the order dated 2.8.2006 came to be implemented from 1.4.2007. Consequently, his name was not included in the panel approved in G.O.Ms.No.104, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department dated 30.7.2009, on the ground that there was currency of punishment. 5. As a matter of fact, two sets of disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, out of which, one resulted in the order of minor penalty dated 2.8.2006. The other disciplinary proceeding ended in his favour by an order dated 1.9.2006, by which the charge got dropped. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, on a misconception that neither the charge dropped on 1.9.2006 nor the punishment inflicted on 2.8.2006 could be held against him for the panel of the year 2007-2008. 6. While it is true that one charge was dropped by the proceedings dated 1.9.2006, the other charge, which resulted in the penalty of stoppage of increment for three months by the order dated 2.8.2006, came into effect only on 1.4.2007. 6. While it is true that one charge was dropped by the proceedings dated 1.9.2006, the other charge, which resulted in the penalty of stoppage of increment for three months by the order dated 2.8.2006, came into effect only on 1.4.2007. The petitioner has unfortunately understood the order to mean that the punishment imposed by the order dated 2.8.2006 would have come into effect on 1.9.2006 and its currency would have lapsed by 1.12.2006. But, any punishment of stoppage of increment would come into effect only with effect from the date on which the next increment is due. The next increment that immediately fell due after the order of penalty dated 2.8.2006, was on 1.4.2007. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner started undergoing penalty only from 1.4.2007, which was also, unfortunately for the petitioner, the crucial date for inclusion in the panel of the year 2007-2008. 7. Mr.Edwin Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner ought have been included at least in the subsequent panel for the year 2008-2009. But unfortunately, before the panel for 2008-2009 was prepared, a charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, by the proceedings dated 11.3.2008. Therefore, on the basis of G.O.Ms.No. 368 P&AR Department dated 18.10.1993 and the clarifications issued in the Government letter No.248 P&AR dated 20.10.1997, the respondents overlooked the petitioner for promotion. 8. However, Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, learned counsel contended on the basis of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs. V.Rani { 2011 (3) CTC 129 }, that the Government orders G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18.10.1993 and the Government letter No.248 dated 20.10.1997 have no statutory force. Therefore, it is his contention that on the basis of those Government Orders, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion, because of the pendency of the charges. 9. But, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner goes against the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, on the question of the right of a person to be considered for promotion, during the pendency of an enquiry into grave charges. 9. But, the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner goes against the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, on the question of the right of a person to be considered for promotion, during the pendency of an enquiry into grave charges. Though Rule 39(d) of the General Rules for Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Services enables the Appointing Authority to promote a person temporarily pending enquiry into grave charges, the Government was constrained to issue the aforesaid Government Orders G.O.Ms.No.368 dated 18-10-1993 and Government letter No.248 dated 20-10-1997 in view of a judgment of the Apex court reversing a decison of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal. 10. In the year 1988, the Government of Tamil Nadu approved a panel of 6 persons working as Regional Transport Officers for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioners. Three persons who were seniors and who were overlooked in the panel, on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings/criminal cases, approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on the basis of Rule 39(d) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. The Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal allowed their claim holding that in view of Rule 39(d), the claim of those persons cannot be ignored altogether and that the promoting authority should apply its mind and consider the allegations as well as public interest. The Tribunal also held that the claims of seniors cannot be ignored solely on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 11. Challenging the said decision of the Tribunal, the officers whose names were included in the panel went to the Supreme Court (it was before L.Chandrakumars case). While reversing the decision of the Tribunal, in its decision rendered on 5.10.1989 in C.O.Arumugam and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu {JT 1989 (4) SC 377}, the Supreme Court laid down the following principle to be adopted:- "As to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state that every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principle. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principle. The promotion of persons against who charge has been framed in the disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted." 12. The decision of the Supreme Court in C.O.Arumugam, represents a turning point, in view of the fact that despite the existence of Rule 39(d), which was issued by the State in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court upheld an administrative decision not to promote a person facing serious charges. Taking clue from the opinion expressed by the Supreme Court in the above decision, to follow certain uniform principles, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.368 and Letter Ms.No.248. It was only after the decision in C.O.Arumugam, that the oft-quoted decision of Union of India vs. K.V.Janakiraman { 1991 (4) SCC 109 } was rendered. Thereafter, a series of decisions came to be rendered by the Apex Court, holding that a person facing an enquiry into grave charges has no right to insist on being included in the panel for promotion. Unfortunately, the decision in C.O.Arumugam, which paved the way for G.O.Ms.No.368 and Letter Ms.No.248 was not brought to the notice of the Full Bench. Therefore, it is no more open to anyone to contend that he has a right to be promoted, despite pendency of an enquiry into grave charges. 13. In any case, in the decision of the Full Bench, the main issue raised was with regard to the currency of punishment and the check period indicated in the Government Orders G.O.Ms.No.368 and the Government letter No.248. Therefore, after taking note of the statutory rules, the aforesaid Government Orders and the decision of the Supreme Court, the Full Bench formulated its opinion in paragraph 28 of its decision. A careful scrutiny of the propositions laid down by the Full Bench in paragraph 28 would show that the Full Bench never held that a person facing an enquiry into grave charges is entitled to be promoted. 14. A careful scrutiny of the propositions laid down by the Full Bench in paragraph 28 would show that the Full Bench never held that a person facing an enquiry into grave charges is entitled to be promoted. 14. Therefore, in the light of the charge framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on 11.3.2008, on an allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, it is not open to the petitioner to seek inclusion of his name in the panel of the year 2008-2009 for promotion. It is only after the petitioner is acquitted of the charges by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings that he would become entitled for promotion. Till then, it may not be open to the petitioner to seek inclusion in the panel. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon another decision rendered in T.M.Gajendiran Vs.The Secretary to Government (2011 W.L.R.434). 16. But, the said decision is actually against the petitioner. It was held in paragraph 18 of the said decision that if specific charges are framed before actual promotion, the person concerned shall not be promoted even if his name had been included in the panel. Therefore, there are no grounds to grant relief to the petitioner. 17. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.