JUDGMENT : G. Jayachandran, J. 1. In both the Writ Petitions, the Petitioner is common. Hence, by consent of both parties, the Writ Petitions were heard together and Common Order is passed. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant by the Director of Town Panchayat, in the year 1995, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Later, he was promoted as Assistant and as. Executive Officer Grade-I. By proceeding in Na. Ka. No. 11597-27/2013/A7, dated 24.4.2015, the Director of Town Panchayat, posted the Petitioner as an Executive Officer (Administration) on ad hoc basis at the office of Assistant Director Town Panchayat (Nagercoil), Kanyakumari. While working in the office of the Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Nagercoil, he was transferred and posted as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) in Karungal Town Panchayat. 3. After joining the said station, as per the Transfer Order, the Petitioner went on Medical leave since, he was affected by hiatus hernia with gastro esophageal reflux. To take intensive treatment for his ailment, he sought for Medical leave initially - for 25 days from 21.11.2016 and extended the Medical leave for a further period from 30.1.2017 to 15.2.2017; 16.2.2017 to 16.3.2017; 15.4.2017 to 20.4.2017. 4. The Second Respondent, issued a Show Cause Notice on 6.3.2017 alleging that the Petitioner has failed to attend the Medical Board on 1.2.2017, 8.2.2017 & 15.2.2017, as per the Report of the Dean, Government Medical College Hospital, Asaripallam, Nagercoil. To the Show Cause Notice of the Second Respondent, dated 6.3.2017, the Petitioner sent a reply to the Second Respondent denying the allegation and informed the Second Respondent that he did not receive any communication to appear before the Medical Board on the above mentioned dates. 5. Again, he was referred to Medical Board. On 19.4.2017, he appeared before the Board. The Board recommended the Petitioner to avail further Medical leave from 20.4.2017 to 19.5.2017. In spite of intensive treatment, he did not recover from the ailment totally, so, explaining the deterioration of his health, he sought for extension of Medical leave from the Second Respondent vide his Letter, dated 20.5.2017. However, the Second Respondent rejected the Leave Application and asked the Petitioner to join duty. 6. Meanwhile, the Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai, vide his Proceeding, dated 17.6.2017, promoted the Petitioner to the post of Executive Officer (Selection Grade) and posted him at Karungal Town Panchayat. However, the Second Respondent rejected the Leave Application and asked the Petitioner to join duty. 6. Meanwhile, the Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai, vide his Proceeding, dated 17.6.2017, promoted the Petitioner to the post of Executive Officer (Selection Grade) and posted him at Karungal Town Panchayat. The said order was served to the Petitioner, by post, only on 1.8.2017. While others were served with Promotion Order and they actually joined duty in the promoted post, with effect from 19.6.2017, for the Petitioner, the Promotion Order was communicated belatedly. Besides, the First Respondent on the advice of the Second Respondent, issued a Charge Memorandum under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, alleging unauthorised absence. The Charge Memorandum was served on the Petitioner on 5.7.2017. 7. According to the Petitioner, in order to prevent him from joining duty at the promoted post, he was placed under suspension vide Proceeding, dated 30.7.2017. Challenging the Charge Memorandum, dated 30.6.2017, and the consequential Suspension Order, dated 30.7.2017, the Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017 seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the Charge Memorandum and the consequential Suspension Order. 8. This Court, at the time of admission of W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017 was, prima facie satisfied with the contention raised by the Petitioner that the Director of Town Panchayat is the Appointing Authority of the Executive Officer, whereas, the District Collector who is not the Appointing Authority, has placed the Petitioner under suspension. The District Collector not being the Appointing Authority and not been delegate, with the power of imposing minor and major penalty, has issued the Suspension Order, therefore, an Interim Stay of the Suspension Order alone was passed vide Order, dated 9.8.2017. 9. Further, it is alleged that, the Second Respondent has not permitted him to join duty, despite the Interim Order of this Court, dated 9.8.2017 and the Petitioner has also not paid with the Subsistence Allowance, in spite of several requests made in person. Contrarily, the earlier Promotion Order, promoting the Petitioner as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) was cancelled by the First Respondent vide Order in Na. Ka. No. 10237/2018/A7, dated 31.10.2018. His name, in the seniority panel for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017 was also deleted. Contrarily, the earlier Promotion Order, promoting the Petitioner as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) was cancelled by the First Respondent vide Order in Na. Ka. No. 10237/2018/A7, dated 31.10.2018. His name, in the seniority panel for the years 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017 was also deleted. The Order of cancelling his promotion and deleting his name in the Seniority Panel was served on him, through a Special Messenger on 7.11.2016, quoting that he is not eligible for Promotion as per Clause II(8) & (10) of Part A of Schedule XI, of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. Aggrieved by the cancellation of his Promotion, the Petitioner herein has filed the Second Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 22618 of 2018, on the ground that while in his earlier Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017, the Court has passed an Interim Order of stay of the Suspension Order, Order of Cancellation of his Promotion has been issued without any authority. 10. While Clause II(10) of Part A of Schedule XI of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 specifically states that the name of a member of service placed under suspension on the crucial date or on the date of consideration for actual promotion shall not be considered for inclusion in the Approved List or for actual Promotion, as the case may be and his name shall be deferred till finalisation of Disciplinary proceedings. Whereas, the Petitioner was not placed under suspension or issued any Charge Memorandum contemplating Departmental Enquiry, on the crucial date, or on the date of his actual Promotion (17.6.2017). When there was neither Charge Memorandum nor the Petitioner was placed under suspension, on the crucial date, the deletion of his name subsequently, and cancelling his Promotion, without affording any opportunity to him to explain, is against the Principles of Natural Justice and the established law. According to the Petitioner, since, the Second Respondent is acting in a vindictive manner, the impugned Order of cancelling his Promotion is liable to be quashed. 11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner herein being a Senior Executive Officer was transferred on Administrative grounds and posed as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) on ad hoc basis in Karungal Town Panchayat, vide Order, dated 14.11.2017, by the Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai. 11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner herein being a Senior Executive Officer was transferred on Administrative grounds and posed as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) on ad hoc basis in Karungal Town Panchayat, vide Order, dated 14.11.2017, by the Director of Town Panchayat, Chennai. He was relieved from the post of Executive Officer (Administration II) on the forenoon on 9.11.2016. The Petitioner reported duty at Karungal Town Panchayat and assumed charge as Executive Officer on 16.11.2016. Thereafter, on 21.11.2016, he applied for Medical leave for 30 days. It was extended for another period of 30 days from 21.12.2016. He was called to appear before the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagercoil - Medical Board, vide Dean's Letter dated 30.12.2016. The Petitioner instead of appearing before the Medical Board, sought for extension of leave, for a further period of 15 days from 15.1.2017. 12. The three communications made by the Respondents directing the Petitioner to appear before the Board on 1.2.2017, 8.2.2017 and 15.02.2017, were not responded by the Petitioner. As he failed to report duty and refusal to appear before the Medical Board, invited the Show Cause Notice vide Roc. No. 4892-206-2, dated 6.3.2017. 13. The Petitioner had conveniently denied the Notice from the Medical Board therefore, he was again called to appear before the Medical Board on 19.4.2017. He was examined by the Medical Board and recommended Medical leave from 20.4.2017 to 19.5.2017 only. In the said circumstances, the Petitioner, who accepted to report duty on 20.5.2017, after the end of Medical leave, again applied for leave without mentioning the type of leave, or number of days. In such circumstances, the First Respondent framed Charges against the Petitioner vide Roc. No. 4892-16-P.2, dated 30.6.2017. The Petitioner refused to receive the Charge Memorandum. Since, the Petitioner failed to resume duty after the expiry of his Medical leave and sent Letter seeking leave without assigning the type of leave or number of days, he, was placed under suspension, on Public interest vide Proceeding, dated 30.7.2017. The Petitioner refused to receive the Suspension Order. Suppressing several facts, approached this Court and got an Order of Stay of the Suspension Order as if, he was not allowed to join duty on 20.5.2017, by the Respondents. 14. The Petitioner refused to receive the Suspension Order. Suppressing several facts, approached this Court and got an Order of Stay of the Suspension Order as if, he was not allowed to join duty on 20.5.2017, by the Respondents. 14. In the absence of Medical Certificate, no leave for a continuous period, exceeding one year, at any point of time, can be sanctioned as per the Fundamental Rules. The Petitioner herein has literally deserted the job but, pretending as if he was not allowed to join duty. Making false claim before the Court, as if he was ready to join duty but, the Respondents preventing him from joining duty. The promotion of the Petitioner as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) was an ad hoc Promotion. He along with seven others were given ad hoc Promotion. While others reported duty, immediately, the Petitioner herein had initially went on Medical leave, extended the leave for some time and even after the Medical Board found him fit to join duty after the Medical leave from 20.4.2017 to 19.5.2017, the Petitioner has abstained himself from joining duty. Hence, the First Respondent was constrained to frame Charge against him and placed him under suspension, on Public interest. 15. Referring his earlier conduct of availing long leave on Medical grounds when he was transferred to Sivagangai District while serving as Executive Officer in Allor Town Panchayat. It is stated in the Counter that, when he was transferred from Kanyakumari District to Sivagangai District, on Administrative ground, the Petitioner went on Medical leave for nearly one year (except a few days between 2.12.2009 to 16.12.2009) and after getting transfer again to Kanyakumari District, he continued to work without any leave. Thus, pointing out that whenever the Petitioner is transferred, he used to go on long leave on Medical grounds and if any action is taken by the Respondents, pretend as if he was subjected to vindictive act. 16. Regarding the competency of the District Collector, who placed the Petitioner under suspension, in the Counter, it is submitted that due to oversight, old Rules was incorporated in the Suspension Order. Rule 14(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, conferred the power on the immediate superior of the State service, to place his subordinates, under suspension. Regarding the competency of the District Collector, who placed the Petitioner under suspension, in the Counter, it is submitted that due to oversight, old Rules was incorporated in the Suspension Order. Rule 14(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, conferred the power on the immediate superior of the State service, to place his subordinates, under suspension. The District Collector, being the Superior Officer of the Executive Officer of Town Panchayat, has every power to place him under suspension. Therefore, the Order of Suspension passed by the First Respondent is valid and legal. 17. As per G.O. Ms. No. 19 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.2.2018, charges have been framed against the Petitioner herein by the District Collector who is delegated with the power to frame charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Being the Authority immediately above the Delinquent, the Petitioner was not considered for the Promotional post pending Disciplinary proceeding. On completion of the Enquiry, his name will be considered for further Promotion. It is incorrect to say that the cancellation of the earlier Promotional Order, dated 17.6.2017 which was only a Temporary and on ad hoc basis will inure him a vested right. The pendency of the Charge Memorandum and the Petitioner's failure to report duty has lead to withdrawal of the temporary Promotional Order. 18. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner herein who holds the post in the rank of Executive Officer is governed under the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayats Subordinates Service Special Rules and not under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. By claiming himself as person governed under State Service misquote the provision of Rules and claim as if the Director, Town Panchayat alone is competent to place him under suspension. 19. In support of his claim, the Government Advocate would also drawn the attention of this Court to G.O. Ms. No. 270, Rural Development Department, dated 4.4.1990 wherein, it has been stated as follows: "............. 3. 19. In support of his claim, the Government Advocate would also drawn the attention of this Court to G.O. Ms. No. 270, Rural Development Department, dated 4.4.1990 wherein, it has been stated as follows: "............. 3. (i) The Executive Officer, Township in the cadre of Block Development Officer shall be designated as "Executive Officer" Township (Special Grade)" the Superintendent in the grade of Block Development Officer in the Directorate of Town Panchayats shall be designated as "Executive Officer", Special Grade (Administration)" and the Executive Officer, Township in the grade of Selection Grade shall be designated as "Executive Officer, Township." (ii) Ministerial Superintendents in the office of the Director of Town Panchayats and the Head Assistant in the Office of the District Town Panchayat Officers shall be re-designated as "Executive Officer, Selection Grade (Administration)" and the Additional Panchayat Officers in the Office of the District Town Panchayat Officers shall be re-designated as "Executive Officers (Selection Grade) (Executive)." 20. Relying upon this Government Order, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the Petitioner herein serving as an Executive Officer (Selection Grade). The Feeder category for the post of Executive Officer (Selection Grade) is an Executive Officer Grade-I or Executive Officer (Administration) in the Directorate of Town Panchayat/ District Town Panchayat Office, with not less than two years of service. The Petitioner herein who as an Executive Officer (Administration) was promoted on ad hoc basis vide Order dated 17.6.2017. He did not join that post but availed Medical leave and abstained for more than a year. The District Collector who is the Appointing Authority for the post of Executive Officer Grade-I and Executive Officer Grade-II, is the immediate superior to the Petitioner and he is competent to place him under suspension pending enquiry. 21. W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017: In the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017, the grievance of the Petitioner herein is that by citing wrong Statute, which is not in existence, the Petitioner was placed under Suspension by the District Collector who had no authority to place him under Suspension. But it is fairly conceded by the Respondents in the Counter that the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, under the Petitioner was placed under Suspension, is no more in existence. The nomenclature of the said Rule is perfectly renamed as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. 22. But it is fairly conceded by the Respondents in the Counter that the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, under the Petitioner was placed under Suspension, is no more in existence. The nomenclature of the said Rule is perfectly renamed as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. 22. The State Government, in G.O. Ms. No. 149, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per. N) Department, dated 23.6.1994 has changed the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. This change was brought into effect due to classification of State and Subordinate services dealt under the General Rules and whereas, for Civil Services exclusively, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules has been framed. 23. When the State and Subordinate Services were placed together with Civil Services, the classification of service was warranted. Hence, the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was in force. After classifying the State and Subordinate Services, from Civil Services; the Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal), Rules is dealt exclusively for the Civil Services and the State and Subordinate Services are governed by General Rules. That is why to be in tune with the present day context, G.O. Ms. No. 149, dated 23.6.1994 was passed by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per. N) Department. Therefore, the Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules under which the Petitioner herein was placed under Suspension by the District Collector is in fact only with reference to Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules which empowers the Competent Authority to place a member under Suspension pending Enquiry into grave charges or contemplation of Enquiry into grave charge. 24. The Suspension Order which is impugned in W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017 indicates that the Petitioner herein Executive Officer (Selection Grade) Karungal Town Panchayat has abstained himself beyond the period of his Medical leave and Enquiry into grave charge on unauthorised absence from duty is pending. 25. It is admitted by the Petitioner herein that on 30.6.2017, he was served with Charge Memorandum and the Postal cover containing the Charge Memorandum enclosed in the Writ Petition along with the impugned Order to substantiate the fact that it was sent through Registered Post on 4.7.2017. 25. It is admitted by the Petitioner herein that on 30.6.2017, he was served with Charge Memorandum and the Postal cover containing the Charge Memorandum enclosed in the Writ Petition along with the impugned Order to substantiate the fact that it was sent through Registered Post on 4.7.2017. Only thereafter, he has been placed under Suspension by the District Collector. Instead of mentioning Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Suspension Order wrongly states as the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The provision of the Rule under which he was placed under suspension is one and the same. (Emphasis applied) 26. The reason for placing the Petitioner under Suspension is clearly mentioned in the Suspension Order. By oversight, without mentioning the new name of the Statute/Rule, the District Collector has erroneously mentioned the erstwhile name of the Statute/Rule. 27. No doubt, it is an error liable to be taken serious note, provided, if any prejudice is caused to the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner herein has not shown any material that by mentioning the name of the Rule wrongly, he was put to prejudice of hardship. In fact, the said Rule viz., Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was in force till 1994 and it has been re-named in the year 1994 as the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Without being aware of that, the Second Respondent has issued the Suspension Order referring the old name. While the reason for Suspension is clearly stated in the Order of Suspension which is impugned in W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017, and the Rule under which the Petitioner was placed under Suspension is specifically mentioned, the Petitioner herein cannot take undue advantage of an error mentioning the old name of the Rule instead of the new name. 28. In so far as the authority of the District Collector to place the Petitioner herein under suspension, is concerned, taking note of the Fact that over the years, due to increase in volume of work in the Secretariat Departments for a large number of lower category of posts included in the State Service Head of the Departments, the other Lower Authorities have been prescribed as Appointing Authorities in the Special Rules or ad hoc Rules. Correspondingly, the powers to impose penalty and suspension have not been delegated to the Appointing Authorities. Correspondingly, the powers to impose penalty and suspension have not been delegated to the Appointing Authorities. Taking note of the above difficulty, the State has issued G.O. Ms. No. 19, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.2.2008 wherein, the Government has decided to delegate the powers of imposing minor or major penalty on all members of the State service and the powers Suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules to the Appointing Authorities and to delegate the power to frame charges under 17(b) of the said Rule or to issue Show Cause Notice-Rule 17(a) of the said Rules to all Authorities, who are immediately below such members of State service even if they are not the Competent Authority to impose Penalty on them. 29. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the District Collector is not the Superior Officer of the Petitioner and the Director of Town Panchayat alone is competent to place him under Suspension, does not carry any merit in view of G.O. Ms. No. 19, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.2.2018 and G.O. Ms. No. 270, Rural Development Department, dated 4.4.1990 clearly states that for the Executive Officer Grade-I and Executive Officer Grade-II, the Appointing Authority is the District Collector. The Petitioner herein before his ad hoc Promotion as Executive Officer (Selection Grade), he was Executive Officer Grade-I. The Promotional Order, dated 17.6.2017 is a Temporary Order on an ad hoc basis which did not take effect due to the wanton and deliberate refusal of the Writ Petitioner to join duty. 30. This Court has granted Interim Order against the Order of Suspension at the time of admission when the Petitioner challenged the Suspension Order. But the fact remains that the Petitioner despite the Interim Order, has not reported to duty. He had to make a Counter allegation as if the Second Respondent did not allow him to join duty whereas, as pointed out in the Counter, the Petitioner herein has sent a Letter on 20.5.2017, the day on which he was supposed to join duty informing the Second Respondent that presently, he has not recovered from his illness therefore, he require leave from 20.5.2017. He will inform the nature of the leave after consulting the Doctor and he will submit his Medical Certificate thereafter. 31. He will inform the nature of the leave after consulting the Doctor and he will submit his Medical Certificate thereafter. 31. If the Petitioner was really intended to get Medical advice and want to inform the Second Respondent about his nature of leave, he should have done it at the earliest. For 45 days after sending this Letter, dated 20.5.2017, he has not informed the Second Respondent about the nature of his leave or forwarded any Medical Certificate. He has not even intimated the number of days he proposed to avail leave. This has prompted the Second Respondent to place him under Suspension, pending Enquiry, on grave charge. 32. The Suspension Order which is dated 30.7.2017 issued by the District Collector, which is the subject matter of W.P. (MD) No. 14888 of 2017 is held to be valid since, the District Collector has every competency to place the Petitioner herein under Suspension for the reasons stated above. 33. W.P. (MD) No. 22618 of 2018: In this Writ Petition, the Order passed by the First Respondent namely the Director of Town Panchayat vide Proceeding, dated 31.10.2018 deleting the name of the Petitioner from the Panel cancelling his ad hoc Promotion as Executive Officer (Selection Grade), without Notice, is legally sustainable, has to be tested. 34. The Director of Town Panchayat in the said Order has referred Clause II(8) & (10) of Part A of Schedule-XI of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. The said Act was enacted by the State Government to regulate the service conditions of the Government Servants in Tamil Nadu. It shall apply to the Posts viz., Temporary or Permanent in all said Subordinate services except to the extent otherwise expressly provided by or under any law for the time being in force or in respect of any member of such service or contract. Section 7 of this Act, reads as follows: "7. Approved candidates - (1) All first appointment to any class or category or grade in any State Service or Subordinate Service, whether by direct Recruitment or by Recruitment by transfer or by Promotion, shall be made by the Appointing Authority from a List of. Approved Candidates. Section 7 of this Act, reads as follows: "7. Approved candidates - (1) All first appointment to any class or category or grade in any State Service or Subordinate Service, whether by direct Recruitment or by Recruitment by transfer or by Promotion, shall be made by the Appointing Authority from a List of. Approved Candidates. All appointments made by transfer, from one class to another class and from one category to another category in the same service carrying the identical scale of pay shall be made by the Appointing Authority from a List of Approved Candidates. Such list shall be. prepared in the manner as specified in Schedule-XI by the Appointing Authority or any other Authority empowered in the Special Rules in that behalf and shall be displayed in the Notice Board in the office of the Appointing Authority......" 35. Pursuant to the above said Rule, Clause I, sub-clause (2) of Schedule-XI Part A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 prescribe the procedure for preparation of Panel/Approved List for Promotion. 36. Clause-I, sub-clause (2) of Schedule-XI Part A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 reads as follows: "(2) If the Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules pending against a member of service are merely stayed by a Court, his case shall be deferred till the judicial proceedings are concluded, unless a contrary Order is passed by the Court and it is decided not to challenge the same. If the Court quashes the Charge Memo, then the name of the member of service concerned shall be considered for inclusion in the Approved List for Promotion or for appointment, if he is otherwise qualified." 37. Clause II, sub-clauses 7, 8, 9, 10 of Part-A of Schedule-XI, deals with the consideration of members for inclusion in the Approved Lists and the same read as follows: "(7) The Remittal Orders issued by the Government directing the Appropriate Authority to initiate Disciplinary action against a member of service shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in the Approved List. If charges are framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules as a result of such Remittal Orders, the name of the member of service shall not be considered for inclusion in the Approved List. If charges are framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules as a result of such Remittal Orders, the name of the member of service shall not be considered for inclusion in the Approved List. (8) Pendency of charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against a member of a service shall be a bar for inclusion of his name in the Approved List. (9) If the Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules pending against a member of the service are merely stayed by a Court, his case shall be deferred till the Judicial proceedings are concluded, unless a contrary order is passed by the Court and it is decided not to challenge the same. If the Court quashes the Charge Memo, then the name of the member of service concerned shall be considered for inclusion in the Approved List for promotion or for appointment, if he is otherwise qualified. (10) The name of a member of service placed under Suspension on the crucial date or on the date of consideration for actual promotion shall not be considered for inclusion in the Approved List or for actual promotion, as the case may be and his name shall be deferred till finalisation of Disciplinary proceedings." 38. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that having been enlisted in the Approved Lists from the year 2014 and promoted as Executive Officer (Selection Grade) vide Order, dated 17.6.2017, the same cannot be cancelled in view of pendency of Disciplinary proceedings since, on the crucial date, there was no charge or contemplation of charge. Further having given promotion, it cannot be cancelled that too without Notice. 39. In response to this submission, it is relevant to point that the Promotion Order relied by the Petitioner which was issued on 17.6.2017 is a conditional Promotional Order. The Order, while promoting the Petitioner and few others, the following condition has been imposed: "(i) The Promotion is purely temporary. (ii) This Temporary Promotion can be cancelled and the promotee may be reverted back at any time without assigning any reason. (iii) If it is brought to the notice that any Disciplinary/Vigilance proceeding is pending against the Promotee, he will be reverted back." 40. (ii) This Temporary Promotion can be cancelled and the promotee may be reverted back at any time without assigning any reason. (iii) If it is brought to the notice that any Disciplinary/Vigilance proceeding is pending against the Promotee, he will be reverted back." 40. Therefore, when the promotion is an ad hoc Promotion, with the condition that if it is found that any Disciplinary proceedings or vigilance action pending against the person, he will be reverted back. The point canvassed by the Petitioner is that, on the crucial date, there was no charge pending against him. It cannot be taken advantage by him when the material facts placed by the State clearly indicates that the Petitioner had been unauthorisedly absent for long period from 21.11.2016 onwards and he has not reported to duty. Though initially he had furnished Medical Certificates but after 20.5.2017, when he was found to fit to join duty by the Medical Board, he has not reported duty. So, on the day, when the Temporary Promotion Order is issued to him, by First Respondent, he has to be construed as an unauthorised absentee. This Fact has been brought to the notice of the First Respondent later. Hence, the First Respondent has withdrawn the earlier Order, dated 17.6.2017 vide his Proceeding, dated 31.10.2018. 41. On one pretext or other, the Petitioner has not reported duty for more than one year and three months. He cannot have the advantage of abstaining himself from serving as Government Servant and also to get promotion. 42. The Order passed on 17.6.2017 promoting him temporarily as Executive Officer (Selection Grade), is issued without taking note of his unauthorised absence for more than a year. The oversight or error committed at the first instance which was later rectified by withdrawing the Promotion, cannot be found fault with. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in these Writ Petitions. 43. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.