Judgment : 1. The petitioner was appointed as Temporary Section Writer on 10.12.1979 and was confirmed in the said post. He was promoted as Junior Assistant on 13.01.1983 and thereafter, as Assistant on 13.08.1986. He was also promoted as Sub Registrar, Grade II on 10.08.2006 after having passed Accounts test for Executive Officer (E.O.). He was further promoted as Sub Registrar Grade I on 02.06.2008. 2. According to the petitioner, the second respondent issued seniority list of Sub Registrars Grade I as on 01.09.2010 in Proceedings No.50580/A2/2010 dated 24.09.2010, wherein, she is at Sl.No.94 and Ms.Sreekaladevi, Mr.K.Raja and Ms.R.Maria Joseph are shown as her juniors. Based on the aforesaid seniority list, when the panel for promotion to the post of District Registrar from Sub Registrars Grade I was issued in G.O.Ms.No.103, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department, dated 09.08.2011, the name of the petitioner was left out. 3. Thereafter, promotions were effected in G.O.Ms.NO.236, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department, dated 30.08.2011 and the juniors of the petitioners were promoted to the post of District Registrar. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.26321 of 2011 praying to include her in the panel for promotion to the post of District Registrar for the year 2010-2011 and consequentially to promote her as District Registrar. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of on 27.02.2012 in the following terms : "5. Learned counsel for the State placed on record a letter from the Inspector General, wherein it is stated that the error of department stands rectified, and her case has been recommended to the State Government for considering her name for promotion from the date of her immediate juniors was promoted, with all consequential benefits. 6, In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the State, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the respondent No.1 to take final decision on recommendation regarding promotion of the petitioner within a period of one month of the receipt of certified copy of this order." 5. The aforesaid order dated 27.02.2012 in W.P.No.26231 of 2011 was passed based on the letter in No.54954/A1/2001, dated 27.02.2012 written by the second respondent to the Additional Government Pleader. 6. Paragraph 4 of the said letter is extracted hereunder: "4. The aforesaid order dated 27.02.2012 in W.P.No.26231 of 2011 was passed based on the letter in No.54954/A1/2001, dated 27.02.2012 written by the second respondent to the Additional Government Pleader. 6. Paragraph 4 of the said letter is extracted hereunder: "4. As she is fully qualified for inclusion in the District Registrar panel, now a proposal is being sent to Government for consider of her name for the said panel." 7. Therefore, the petitioner should have been included at the appropriate place in the panel and should have been promoted from the date on which her immediate junior was promoted as District Registrar. But the impugned order dated 12.06.2012 in Government Letter No.3617/H/2012-4 was issued by the first respondent stating that the petitioner is facing a disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai, pursuant to Government letter (2D)No.40, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 21.03.2012. Hence, the petitioner could not be included in the panel for District Registrar for the year 2010-2011 at the appropriate place in G.O.Ms.No.103, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 09.08.2011. 8. Para 2 and 3 of the government letter dated 12.06.212 are extracted hereunder: "2. You have been placed on your defence before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Chennai, in Government letter (2D)No.40, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, dated 21.3.2012. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings inquiry is equivalent to Disciplinary Proceedings initiated under rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules and it should be held against the officer for inclusion in the panel as per Letter (Ms)No.248, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 20.10.1997. Hence, your name cannot be included in the panel of District Registrar at present. 3. I am, therefore to inform you that your request to include your name in the panel of District Registrar for the year 2010-2011 is deferred till the finalisation of the above said Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings case." 9. The petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid Government letter dated 12.06.2012 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to include her name in the panel for promotion to the post of District Registrar in the Tamil Nadu Registration Service for the year 20102011 and to promote her as District Registrar from the date on which her immediate junior was promoted. 10. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit refuting the allegations. 10. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit refuting the allegations. The crux of the counter-affidavit is that since the petitioner is facing the disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings pursuant to the Government Letter (2D)No.40, dated 21.03.2012, she is not included in the panel. 11. Heard both sides. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court dated 16.07.2010 made in W.P.No.15031 of 2010 (R.S.Rajan V. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai and another). He submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the said decision. 13. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader has reiterated the stand as made out in the counter-affidavit. 14. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 15. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of the judgment dated 16.07.2010 made in W.P.No.15031 of 2010 is relevant and the same are extracted hereunder: "7. As per G.O.Ms.No.368, P & AR Department, dated 18.10.1993 and the several orders which followed the same, an enquiry by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings will be equivalent to the charges framed under Rule 17(b). But an enquiry shall be deemed to have been undertaken only when a charge is framed. Even under the Tamil Nadu Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, a charge ought to have been framed for depriving a person of consideration. 8. The learned Government Advocate produced a letter Ms.No.248, P & AR Department, dated 20.10.1997, issued by the Chief Secretary to Government. The clarification furnished in the said letter, which are relevant for the purpose of our case, are as follows:- 9. From the above it is clear that till a charge memo is prepared, the petitioner cannot be said to be suffering from any disqualification for inclusion of his name in the panel. All the Government Orders make it clear that a person can be denied promotion if an enqiry is pending, either at the time of preparation of the panel or at the time when actual promotion orders are issued. In this case, the promotion orders were issued on 7.7.2010 under G.O.(2D)No.86. The crucial date for the panel of the year 2009-2010 was also 1.4.2009. On none of these dates, a charge memo was issued and pending against the petitioner. The impugned order does not also show any currency of penalty against the petitioner. In this case, the promotion orders were issued on 7.7.2010 under G.O.(2D)No.86. The crucial date for the panel of the year 2009-2010 was also 1.4.2009. On none of these dates, a charge memo was issued and pending against the petitioner. The impugned order does not also show any currency of penalty against the petitioner. Therefore, the only reason stated in the impugned order that TDP case pending, cannot be taken to be an actual pendency of a charge memo and hence the action of the respondents deferring the case of the petitioner cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed, quashing that portion of the impugned order by which the case of the petitioner has been deferred for promotion. The respondents are directed to set right the mistake done and issue appropriate orders of promotion in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." 16. I am of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly correct in his submissions that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court. There was no disciplinary proceedings pending at the time when the penal was prepared in G.O.Ms.No.103, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H) Department, dated 09.08.2011, as stated above. Thereafter, when the petitioner came before this Court by filing W.P.No.26231 of 2011 to include her name in the said G.O.Ms.No.103 at the appropriate place, it was accepted by the respondent that it was a mistake and the petitioner would be included at the appropriate place. Relevant paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment are extracted above. 17. Therefore, the respondents should have included her name at the appropriate place in the panel and the petitioner should have been promoted from the date on which her immediate junior was promoted. But the impugned order was passed stating that some disciplinary proceedings is pending from 2012. The disciplinary proceedings pending from 2012 could have no bearing for the promotion to the petitioner for the year 20102011. 18. But the impugned order was passed stating that some disciplinary proceedings is pending from 2012. The disciplinary proceedings pending from 2012 could have no bearing for the promotion to the petitioner for the year 20102011. 18. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to include the petitioner at the appropriate place in the panel for promotion to the post of District Registrar in G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 09.08.2011 and also a further direction is issued to the respondents to promote her on notional basis from the date on which her immediate junior was promoted within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 19. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.