JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is a District Registrar in Registration Department. The next avenue of promotion is Assistant Inspector General of Registration. 2 He was issued a charge memo on 8.4.2010 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules. He gave explanation on 23.4.2010. 3. While so, the panel of District Registrars fit for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector General of Registration was issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.116, Commercial Taxes and Registration department, dated 22.6.2010, for the year 20102011. The name of the petitioner was not included in the panel, since aforesaid disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. 4. Based on the panel, the persons including the juniors were promoted on 22.6.2010. 5. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.(D) No.260, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 19.9.2011, dropping the charges that were made against the petitioner in charge memo, dated 8.4.2010. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.30045 of 2011 praying for direction to the Government to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of District Registrar for the year 2010-2011 for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector General of Registrar, since charges were dropped. 7. This Court passed an order, dated 31.8.2012 in W.P.No.30045 of 2011 directing the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner to include his name in the panel in the light of the fact that the charges made against the petitioner were dropped. 8. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.501, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department, dated 16.11.2012 including the name of the petitioner in the panel of District Registrar for the year 2010-2011 for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector General of Registration. 9. Thereafter, charge memo, dated 7.3.2013 was issued making certain allegations. The petitioner also gave explanation on 22.03.2013. 10. The second respondent passed an order, dated 22.3.2013 refusing to give promotion pursuant to inclusion of name of the petitioner in the panel, on the ground that subsequent charge memo dt.22.3.2013 was issued. 11. Inspector General of Registration. 9. Thereafter, charge memo, dated 7.3.2013 was issued making certain allegations. The petitioner also gave explanation on 22.03.2013. 10. The second respondent passed an order, dated 22.3.2013 refusing to give promotion pursuant to inclusion of name of the petitioner in the panel, on the ground that subsequent charge memo dt.22.3.2013 was issued. 11. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash that portion of order in G.O.(D) No.501, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 16.11.2012 refusing to grant monetary benefits though he was included in the panel and also to quash letter dated 23.3.2013 of the second respondent refusing to grant promotion pursuant to inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion in G.O.(D) No.501, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 16.11.2012. 12. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not press his claim to quash the G.O.(D) No.501, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 16.11.2012. It is submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the letter, dated 23.3.2013 alone is quashed. 13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is bad, since charge memo, dated 7.3.2013 cannot be put against him for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector General of Registration for the year 2010-2011. The only impediment was the charge memo, dated 8.4.2010 and the same was dropped. Now fresh charge memo that was issued in 2013 cannot be put against him to deny promotion for the year 2010-2011. 14. The learned Special Govt. Pleader has sought to sustain the impugned letter, dated 23.3.2013 of the second respondent. According to him, in view of the subsequent charge memo, dated 7.3.2013, the petitioner cannot seek promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector General of Registration based on the panel of the year 2010-2011. 15. I have considered the submission made on either side. 16. The name of the petitioner was not included in the panel of District Registrar for the year 2010-2011 on the sole ground that disciplinary proceedings relating to the charge memo, dated 8.4.2010 was pending. Subsequently, charges were dropped by the Government vide G.O.(D) No.260, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 19.9.2011. The Government also included the name of the petitioner in the panel, by issuing G.O.(D) No.501, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 16.11.2012. Subsequently, charges were dropped by the Government vide G.O.(D) No.260, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 19.9.2011. The Government also included the name of the petitioner in the panel, by issuing G.O.(D) No.501, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 16.11.2012. At this juncture, the second respondent passed an order, dated 23.3.2013 stating that the petitioner cannot be given promotion on the ground that subsequent charge memo dt.7.3.2013 was issued to the petitioner. 17. In my view, subsequent charge memo cannot be put against the petitioner for promotion for the year 2010-2011. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only impediment is charge memo, dated 8.4.2010. When the same was dropped, he has to be promoted pursuant to inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Asst. Inspector General of Registration for the year 2010-2011. Subsequent charge memo, dated 7.3.2013 cannot be put against the petitioner, particularly when the juniors included in the panel for the year 2010-2011 were promoted on 22.6.2010. Hence, the impugned letter dated 23.3.2013 is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Asst. Inspector General of Registration, from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted on notional basis, since G.O.(D) No.501, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department made it clear that promotion shall be on notional basis. The respondents are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.