JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the order G.O. (3D) No.29, Environment and Forest (FR.I) Department, dated 25.10.2006, and for issuance of directions to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the ensuing panel for promotion as Assistant Conservator of Forests in Tamil Nadu Forest Service for the year 2008-2009, notwithstanding and without reference to the order of punishment in G.O. (3D) No.29, Environment and Forest (FR.I) Department, dated 25.10.2006, and to promote the petitioner. 2. It is not understood how this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, can issue directions to the respondents not to take into consideration the penalty imposed on a person, for considering him for further promotion. 3. This Court, in a given circumstance, on being satisfied that the order of punishment is not sustainable in law can stay the operation of the punishment, which may result in consideration of the case for promotion, without reference to punishment order, but cannot issue a direction that the punishment order, which is in force and has not been stayed, be not considered at the time of considering a person for promotion. 4. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Forester on 16.04.1980 and thereafter, promoted as Forest Ranger on 23.05.1989. The petitioner was served with a charge memo by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 16.02.1988, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the allegation that the petitioner, with the active connivance of the Divisional Manager, Marudamparai Rubber Division, created false records, showing that the workers executed the work of dusting sulphur in 362 hectares of the rubber plantation in Marudamparai Division, without the work having been actually executed. The petitioner was also charged with misappropriation of Rs.7,921/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred twenty one only). 5. The petitioner denied the charges. The enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry and submitted the report holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 6. The petitioner was also charged with misappropriation of Rs.7,921/- (Rupees seven thousand nine hundred twenty one only). 5. The petitioner denied the charges. The enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry and submitted the report holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the enquiry officer overlooked the explanation of the petitioner in coming to the conclusion that the loss caused to the Government was Rs.3,960.50 (Rupees three thousand nine hundred sixty and fifty paise only), which amount was directed to be recovered from the petitioner as penalty, along with the imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect. 7. As per the Rules, the matter was referred to Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under Regulation 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission did not accept the proposal by pointing out defects in the conduct of enquiry and issued a direction to rectify the defects and hold fresh enquiry against petitioner. 8. In compliance with the directions of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, fresh enquiry was held. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and enquiry report was served to the petitioner on 19.08.2004. The petitioner again was held guilty of the charges. The proposed punishment of recovery and stoppage of increment with cumulative effect for one year was approved by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the petitioner was accordingly imposed the punishment vide impugned order. 9. The case of the petitioner is that after imposing the punishment, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, called for proposals for appointment of fit Rangers as Assistant Conservator of Forests in Tamil Nadu Forest Service for recruitment by transfer for the year 2008-2009. 10. The case of the petitioner is that except for the punishment referred to above, there was no other impediment in selecting the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Conservator of Forests. 11. The petitioner, without availing the statutory remedy of appeal to challenge the impugned order, has filed this writ petition to challenge the order imposing punishment of recovery and stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, primarily on the ground that there is delay in passing of the order of punishment, therefore, liable to be quashed. 12. 11. The petitioner, without availing the statutory remedy of appeal to challenge the impugned order, has filed this writ petition to challenge the order imposing punishment of recovery and stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, primarily on the ground that there is delay in passing of the order of punishment, therefore, liable to be quashed. 12. In support of this contention, the reliance is placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.Amaladoss vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2006 (5) CTC 141 , wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to lay down that inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo is a ground to quash the charge sheet and further proceedings. 13. The reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in S.Rathinavelu vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and another, 2009 (2) CTC 513 , again laying down that delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings vitiates the proceedings on the ground of delay and laches. 14. On consideration, I find that there is no force in this writ petition. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are based on the facts of that case, as it has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that mere delay in initiation of departmental proceedings cannot be a ground to quash the charge sheet, as the petitioner beside delay is required to show what is the prejudice caused because of the delay. It is only if the employee is able to prove the prejudice so caused by delay that charge sheet can be quashed and not merely on account of delay. 15. The judgments of this Court, on which the reliance is placed, will have to be taken to be as one dealing with the facts of the particular case to hold that prejudice was caused to the petitioner in those writ petitions because of the delay for quashing of the charge sheet. 16. In the case in hand, there cannot be said to be any delay, as it is the case where the petitioner was issued charge sheet immediately on the commission of misconduct. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceedings. There is no complaint of violation of any principles of natural justice or prejudice if any caused to the petitioner. 17. 16. In the case in hand, there cannot be said to be any delay, as it is the case where the petitioner was issued charge sheet immediately on the commission of misconduct. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceedings. There is no complaint of violation of any principles of natural justice or prejudice if any caused to the petitioner. 17. The delay in passing of the final order of punishment is due to the fact that the first enquiry stood vitiated on technical grounds and thereafter, fresh enquiry was ordered, in which the petitioner participated without raising any objection nor challenged the order of fresh enquiry. 18. The petitioner, having participated and taken a chance, cannot challenge the order of punishment merely on the ground of delay and laches, as it is not the case where the charge sheet was issued with delay. The delay occurred in holding of the proceedings. At the sake of repetition, it is held that the petitioner participated in the enquiry, and there was no prejudice to petitioner merely on account of delay. 19. Therefore, once an order of punishment does not call for any interference, the other relief claimed by the petitioner that the punishment may not be taken for considering the case for promotion cannot be accepted in law. 20. Consequently, finding no merit, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed, but, with no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed.