Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, as Deputy Tahsildar of Tiruvannamalai District without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide A2/72883/92 dated 13.11.1994, by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai District. The petitioner also seeks all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through employment exchange in the District Collector Officer, Vellore on 10.08.1983. The services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant was regularized on 25.06.1984. Thereafter, Tiruvannamalai District was bifurcated from Vellore District on 30.09.1989, when petitioner opted to remain in Tiruvannamalai District. 3. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 05.12.1990. While the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the Collector's Office, Tiruvannamalai during the year 1989, a proposal submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai, for appointing Jeep Driver was approved by the PA (General) to the Collector. The qualification prescribed for the post of Jeep Driver was 8th Standard pass, but the person recommended was not having requisite qualification, as he was only 5th standard passed. 4. In the file of the applicant for the post of driver, petitioner had pointed out that the applicant was only 5th class passed. Inspite of this, the proposal was approved, and he was issued appointment letter as Jeep Driver. 5. Thereafter, irregularity in appointment was noticed, and directions were issued to take departmental action against the Officers responsible for illegal appointment of Jeep Driver. 6. The petitioner, being one of the persons responsible, was issued charge memo on 13.11.1994, along with other concerned officials. 7. The case of the petitioner is that after issuing charge memo, for a number of years, no action was taken, which forced the petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for quashing the charge memo. 8. Learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal did not agree with the petitioner, but disposed of the original application, with a direction to expedite the enquiry, and take final decision thereon within specified period. 9. The reason for issuing direction was, that the case of the petitioner for further promotion was not being considered due to pendency of enquiry under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 10. 9. The reason for issuing direction was, that the case of the petitioner for further promotion was not being considered due to pendency of enquiry under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 10. It is not disputed that the petitioner was held guilty in the enquiry, and was imposed punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect in the year 2002, for a period of three months. 11. The case of the petitioner is that as the petitioner was issued only minor punishment, therefore, he is entitled to be considered for promotion, when the panel was drawn for the year 2001. 12. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is only in case of acquittal from the charges, that the person can claim the right of consideration for promotion from the date when the junior was promoted, but certainly not in a case where the petitioner was punished. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the petitioner is entitled to consideration for promotion, as for the delay in holding enquiry, petitioner was not in any way responsible, who duly participated in the enquiry. 14. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be noticed to be rejected for the simple reason that the challenge of the petitioner to charge memo on account of delay already stood rejected. 15. It was in pursuance to the directions of learned Administrative Tribunal that the enquiry completed, where the petitioner was not only found guilty, but also imposed minor punishment. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted, that for the delay petitioner cannot be denied promotion. 16. Consequently, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.