Judgment : This Writ Petition is directed against the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, Transport (D) Department, dated 12.11.2013, whereby and whereunder, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the panel prepared for promotion to the post of Manager (Technical), on account of the subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. BACKGROUND FACTS: 2. The petitioner joined the service as Assistant Engineer in the Erstwhile Cholan Roadways Corporation. He is now working as General Manager in Tamil Nadu State Transport Undertaking at Kumbakonam. 3. The Government formed a panel for appointment by promotion to the post of Manager in the Technical field. The Government issued an order in G.O.(Ms)No.89, Transport (D) Department, dated 29.04.2013, whereby and whereunder, the name of the petitioner was included at Serial No.65 for promotion to the post of Manager. While so, the Government issued an order in G.O (Ms)No.169, Transport (D) Department, dated 30.08.2013, whereby and whereunder, the post of Manager was filled up. The petitioner was not given promotion. 4. The petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 01.07.2013, wherein it was alleged that during the period from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2011, the Transport Corporation incurred expenses and hospitality charges to please the Hon'ble Transport Minister. In short, the Government alleged that the amount spent by the Minister to entertain his Guests was shown as expenses of the Corporation. According to the petitioner, he was authorised to sanction only upto Rs.500/- and as such, it would not be possible for him to sanction such a huge amount, as indicated in the charge memo. 5. The petitioner initially filed a Writ Petition to implement the order in G.O.(Ms)No.89, Transport (D) Department, dated 29.04.2013 and for a consequential direction to promote him as Manager without reference to the departmental proceedings. Subsequently, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.210, Transport (D) Department, dated 12.11.2013. This made the petitioner to amend the prayer. 6. The petitioner now challenges the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, Transport (D) Department, dated 12.11.2013. The consequential prayer is to promote him as Manager without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings. 7. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the respondent, originally, the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Manager in the Technical Wing. 7. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit in answer to the contentions raised in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. According to the respondent, originally, the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Manager in the Technical Wing. Subsequently, charges have been framed against him on 01.07.2013 under Rule 28(d)(g)(i) & (az) of Discipline and Appeal Rules of Common Service Rules, which is similar to Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In view of the involvement of petitioner in a departmental proceedings, his name was rightly deleted from the panel. According to the respondent, in view of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, it is not possible to promote the petitioner to the post of Manager. Accordingly, the respondent justified the impugned proceedings. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS: 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is not applicable to the employees of Transport Corporation. According to the learned counsel, there should be a specific provision to delete the name of an employee from the panel prepared for promotion. Similarly, there should be an express provision in the Service Regulations to deny promotion to the employees on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. It is the contention of the learned counsel that Service Regulations do not contain any such rule and as such, the impugned order is bad in law. 9. The learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order. According to her, the misconduct is major in nature. The relevant provision is akin to that of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The learned Government Advocate contended that the respondent was right in deleting the name of the petitioner from the panel on account of the currency of departmental proceedings. THE CORE ISSUE: 10. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent was correct in deleting the name of the petitioner from the panel for promotion to the post of Manager, on account of the subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings. DISCUSSION: 11. The name of the petitioner was originally included for promotion to the post of Manager in the Technical Wing. His name is found in the panel drawn by the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.89, Transport (D) Department, dated 29.04.2013. 12. DISCUSSION: 11. The name of the petitioner was originally included for promotion to the post of Manager in the Technical Wing. His name is found in the panel drawn by the Government in G.O.(Ms) No.89, Transport (D) Department, dated 29.04.2013. 12. During the currency of the panel for promotion to the post of Manager, the Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Charges were framed under Rule 28(d) (g)(i) & (az) of Discipline and Appeal Rules of Common Service Rules. The Service Regulations do not contain a specific provision to deny promotion to the employees on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. It is not the case of the respondent that Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been extended to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Undertaking and as such, disciplinary proceedings initiated subsequently would operate as a bar to consider the claim of employees for promotion, notwithstanding the drawal of panel earlier. The Transport Department is admittedly a Government Undertaking. However, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Undertaking. They are governed by a separate set of rules. There should be a specific provision in the said rules to take action to delete the name of an employee from the panel for promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 13. The name of the petitioner was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Manager on 29.04.2013. It was only thereafter the Corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings. The Managing Director of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Kumbakonam) Limited, Kumbakonam, vide his letter dated 15.07.2013, informed the Government that they have initiated departmental proceedings against 18 delinquent officers including the petitioner herein, based on the remittal orders issued in G.O(2D)No.22, Transport (D) Department, dated 27.08.2012. The respondent, immediately thereafter, issued the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.210, Transport (D) Department, dated 12.11.2013, deleting the name of the petitioner from the panel drawn, as per order in G.O.(Ms)No.89, Transport (D) Department, dated 29.04.2013. The respondent has taken up a contention that Rule 28(d)(g)(i) & (az) of Discipline and Appeal Rules of Common Service Rules is equivalent to Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The respondent has taken up a contention that Rule 28(d)(g)(i) & (az) of Discipline and Appeal Rules of Common Service Rules is equivalent to Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Government have issued orders to the effect that in case a charge memo was issued to an officer under Rule 17(b), it would operate as a bar for considering his claim for promotion during the currency of such disciplinary proceedings. However, there is no such Government Order or Service Regulations operating in the field, insofar as Transport employees are concerned. The respondent has not produced neither a rule nor a Government order to the effect that pendency of disciplinary proceedings would operate as a bar for promotion. Therefore, it is very clear that the respondent deleted the name of the petitioner from the panel without any authority. THE RECENT DECISION: 14. The Supreme Court in Dev Prakash Tewari vs. U.P. Coop. Institutional Service Board [2014 (8) Scale 216] had an occasion to consider the question as to whether it is open to the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or continue it after retirement without any provision for the same under the relevant Service Regulations. The Supreme Court, by following an earlier judgment in Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others [ 1999(3) SCC 666 ], held that in case there was no authority vested with the Department for continuing the disciplinary proceedings even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the employee, such proceedings would be vitiated on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 15. The decision in Dev Prakash Tewari's case would apply to the facts of the present case. The Service Regulations framed by the Transport Corporation does not contain any express provision, which would operate as a bar for claiming promotion to the higher post on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The respondent has, therefore, no authority to delete the name of the petitioner from the panel on account of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings at a later point of time. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. DISPOSITION: 16. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent has, therefore, no authority to delete the name of the petitioner from the panel on account of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings at a later point of time. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. DISPOSITION: 16. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings in G.O(2D)No.22, Transport (D) Department, dated 27.08.2012. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. In the upshot, I allow the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.