JUDGMENT : R. Subbiah, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.04.2006 passed by the Single Judge in W.P.No.18053 of 2004 on the file of this Court.) The Writ Appeal is heard through video-conferencing. 2. The Writ Appeal is filed by the State as against the order dated 03.04.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18053 of 2004 disposing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent by directing the appellants/State to fix the revised seniority to the respondent/writ petitioner and to confer him appropriate further promotion as per law. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Appeal are as follows: (a) The respondent/writ petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Cat-1) (DSP) in the selection process resorted to by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) during the year 1990 and he joined the post on 16.12.1991. According to the respondent, he is fully eligible for being promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) in the panel prepared by the Government for the year 1998-1999 vide G.O.Ms.No.1231, Home (Police-1A) Department, dated 09.09.1998, however, his name was not included in the said panel. The reason for non-inclusion of the name of the respondent in the panel was that his probation was not declared owing to the fact that he was placed under suspension with effect from 01.10.1993. Further, pursuant to the order of suspension, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to the respondent for certain acts of delinquency. As per the charge, the respondent had committed gross negligence of duty and failed to organise effective bandobust near Hotel Brindvanan, SIPCOT, Ranipet, on 10.09.1993 during pre-poll election. In the absence of Police Bandobust, members of two Political Parties were injured, besides damage to a vehicle. (b) It is stated that the order of suspension issued to the respondent was revoked on 11.07.1994 without prejudice to the departmental proceedings. Subsequently, in order to prove the charge against the respondent, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who held that the charge against the respondent had not been proved. Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Government, by G.O.D.No.1103, Home (Pol.II) Department, dated 04.12.1996 dropped all further action in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent/writ petitioner. Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Government, by G.O.D.No.1103, Home (Pol.II) Department, dated 04.12.1996 dropped all further action in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent/writ petitioner. (c) The first appellant issued G.O.(D).No.587, Home (Police.II) Department, dated 21.09.1998, regularising the period of suspension of the respondent from 02.10.1993 to 11.07.1994 as duty and ordered to treat the said period as duty for all purposes under Rule 54 (B) (3) and (4) of The Fundamental Rules. Therefore, according to the respondent, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him was not a bar against him and it cannot be put against him to deny seniority and further promotion. It was also contended that since the respondent had reached the zone of consideration, he is entitled for inclusion of his name in the panel of Deputy Superintendent of Police fit for promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police for the year 1998-1999. The crucial date for preparation of the panel for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police for the year 1998-1999 was 01.06.1998, on which date, the departmental proceedings initiated against him was not in currency and it ended in dropping of all the charges against him. Inspite of the same, once again, in the panel drawn for the year 1998-1999, vide G.O.Ms.No.1231, Home (Polie-1A) Department, dated 09.09.1998, the name of the respondent, was not included. On the other hand, the panelists numbering 53 were given promotion excluding the respondent. (d) While so, on 16.09.1998, the respondent received a communication from the first appellant stating that, “... you are a probationer consideration of your claim for inclusion in the above panel has been deferred till the declaration of probation... After the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/case/enquiry and orders passed thereon by the competent authority/declaration of probation, your claim will be considered for inclusion or otherwise in the said panel on merits as per the principles laid down in G.O.Ms.No.368, P & AR (Per.S) Department, dated 18.10.1993.“ (e) According to the respondent, as per the guidelines issued by the Department for promotion, in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S Department, dated 18.10.1993, once, a person, whose promotion has been deferred, pending disciplinary proceedings, his claim should be considered within 15 days from the date of issue of final orders in the departmental disciplinary case. Thus, according to the writ petitioner, he should be given all consequential service and monetary benefits including promotion retrospectively, from the date on which his junior got promoted. (f) It is stated that subsequently, the second appellant had declared the probation of the respondent by proceedings dated 10.06.2001 and he had completed his probation on 14.12.1993. The writ petitioner has become eligible for consideration of his claim of promotion for the year 1998-1999 retrospectively. Since the respondent did not face any disciplinary proceedings or any adverse remarks against him, his claim should have been considered for promotion as ASP (Category-1) for the year 1998-1999. It was submitted that the appellants, instead of declaring the probation of the respondent and considering his claim for promotion to the post of Addl. Superintendent of Police, initiated the disciplinary proceedings, for no fault of his, which was also subsequently dropped. (g) While facts are so, the respondent was issued with another charge memo dated 08.10.1998 which was served on him on 12.10.1998, which ended in stoppage of increment for a period of five years with cumulative effect vide G.O. (2D) No.298, Home (Pol.III) Department dated 14.12.2000. As against the same, the respondent filed a review petition to the Government and by order passed in G.O.(2D).No.260, Home (Pol.II) Department dated 29.07.2003, the punishment was modified into stoppage of increment for a period of three years. Thus, the currency of punishment ended on 14.12.2003. By citing the same, the respondent has submitted a representation on 25.03.2004 to include his name in the panel for ASP for the year 1998-1999, for which, the first appellant issued a letter dated 07.04.2004 stating that he was facing grave charges under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules from 1998 onwards and currency of punishment was also found existing at the time of consideration of his case for inclusion in the promotion panels. (h) It was also stated that the punishment period ended only on 14.12.2003 and only from that date he will be eligible for consideration for inclusion of his name in the promotional panel. (h) It was also stated that the punishment period ended only on 14.12.2003 and only from that date he will be eligible for consideration for inclusion of his name in the promotional panel. It was also further observed in the said letter that the question of restoration of seniority along with his batch-mates does not arise, since he was not exonerated from the charges but suffered punishments, and that his name may be considered in the ensuing panel of ASP for the year 2004-2005, subject to absence of any impediment as per Rules in force or 01.06.2004, the crucial date for consideration. Challenging the said letter dated 07.04.2004, the respondent-writ petitioner filed W.P.No.18053 of 2004 to quash the same and to direct the appellants to consider the writ petitioner-s claim for promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) by including his name in the panel of the year 1998-1999 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1231, Home (Police.1A) Department, dated 09.09.1998 and promote him as ASP on par with his juniors and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits. 4. Opposing the above Writ Petition, the appellants/State have filed counter affidavit before the Writ Court stating that the earlier charge memo dated 02.10.1993 ended in the revocation of suspension and dropping of charge on 04.12.1996. Subsequently, another charge memo dated 08.10.1998 was served on him on 12.10.1998, which culminated in imposition of punishment. Therefore, due to the pendency of the charge memo, the respondent was rightly not given promotion. The currency of punishment imposed in the subsequent charge memo ended only on 14.12.2003 from which date alone, he will be eligible for consideration for inclusion of his name in the panel. These facts have been clearly dealt with by the appellants in the letter dated 07.04.2004. Further, earlier he was placed under suspension with effect from 02.10.1993 to 11.07.1994, i.e. during the period of his probation of two years from the date of his appointment on 16.12.1991 and hence, his name was not included in the panel of the year 1998-1999 as he was facing charge(s). Thus, the appellants/State prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Thus, the appellants/State prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 03.04.2006 passed in the Writ Petition (W.P.No.18053 of 2004), had observed that the writ petitioner-s probation had been declared from 16.06.1992 by order dated 10.06.2001 and hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to get his name included in the panel of the year 1998-1999. Even the first appellant passed an order on 16.09.1998 stating that his claim will be considered after declaration of his probation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition, by setting aside the letter dated 07.04.2004 and directed the appellants to fix the revised seniority to the writ petitioner and to confer him appropriate further promotion as per law. Operative portion of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge reads as under: “6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, his name was not considered for promotion because his probation was not declared as on the crucial date: 09.08.1998 and by an order dated 10.06.2001 the said probation having been declared from 16.06.1992, he is entitled to get his name included in the panel for the year 1998-99. It is to be noted that the respondent also passed an order on 16.09.1998, that petitioner-s claim will be considered after declaration of his probation”. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, drew attention to Paragraph 15 of Clause II relating to Consideration of members for inclusion in the approved lists, of Part-A of Schedule XI of Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and thus he submitted that no member of service shall be promoted or appointed to a post, if the member was undergoing any punishment imposed under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, either on the crucial date or on the date of consideration for actual promotion. In the case on hand, the respondent-writ petitioner was dealt with a grave charge under Rule 17(b) of the Tami Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules from 1998 and imposed with major punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect. However, on review, the period of punishment alone was reduced from five years into three years of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. However, on review, the period of punishment alone was reduced from five years into three years of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, the name of the respondent was not recommended for inclusion in the subsequent panel of ASP (Category-I) drawn for the year 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. While the panel was drawn for promotion to the post of ASP on 09.09.1998, the writ petitioner-s name was not included in the said panel of the year 1998-1999, as his probation was not declared. The first appellant, by letter dated 16.09.1998, informed the writ petitioner that his request for promotion will be considered after declaration of his probation. His probation was declared in the proceedings of the second appellant-DGP, dated 10.06.2001 with effect from 14.12.1993. However, only after the end of his punishment imposed pursuant to the subsequent charge memo, his name was included in the panel of ASP (Category-1) drawn for the year 2004-2005 in Sl.No.1, approved in G.O.Ms.No.1203, Home (Pol.1A) Department, dated 13.10.2004 and he was promoted as ASP, vide order issued in Police Note No.42, Home (Pol.1A) Department, dated 24.10.2004. Hence, for the above reasons, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that on the crucial date, namely on 01.06.1998, the respondent was not facing any disciplinary proceedings. The incident relating to his alleged negligence in organising the bandobust duty during pre-poll election bandobust, took place during the period of probation. His probation was supposed to have been declared in 1993, but was delayed. Subsequently, the charges framed against him were dropped on 04.12.1996 and therefore, there is no bar or embargo for including his name in the panel for the year 1998. The period of suspension undergone by the respondent-writ petitioner on account of the disciplinary proceedings, was also ordered to be treated as duty, vide G.O.(D).No.587, Home (Pol.II) Department, dated 21.09.1998. Therefore, absolutely, there is no impediment for inclusion of his name in the panel of the year 1998-1999. There is no charge memo on the crucial date for preparation of the panel of the year 1998-1999, namely on 01.06.1998 and the panel was published on 09.09.1998. 8. Therefore, absolutely, there is no impediment for inclusion of his name in the panel of the year 1998-1999. There is no charge memo on the crucial date for preparation of the panel of the year 1998-1999, namely on 01.06.1998 and the panel was published on 09.09.1998. 8. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner that the writ petitioner-s probation was declared in the rank of DSP on 14.12.1993, by the proceedings of the second appellant/DGP, dated 10.06.2001. The subsequent charge memo proceedings initiated before promotion, will have no consequence. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner invited the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (i) 2000 (7) SCC 210 (Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh) (ii) 1991 Supp (2) SCC 199 = MANU/SC/0089/1989 (C.O.Arumugam and othes Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) and (iii) decision of a Division Bench of this Court in MANU/TN/1809/2015 (The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and another Vs. J.Sivakumar). By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned Senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge, by considering the said decision rendered by the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (7) SCC 210 (cited supra), had set aside the impugned letter dated 07.04.2004. Such a well-considered order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference by this Court and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeal. 9. Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the materials available on record. 10. The case of the respondent/writ petitioner is that he is entitled for inclusion of his name in the panel for the year 1998-1999. On the crucial date for preparation of the panel for appointment to the post of ASP for the year 1998-1999, i.e. on 01.06.1998, no charge was pending against him. The charge(s) framed against him was dropped on 04.12.1996 by G.O.(D).No.1103 of Home (Police.2) Department. Similarly, even on 09.09.1998, being the date of consideration and preparation of the panel of the year 1998-1999 to the post of ASP, no charge was pending against the writ petitioner. Further, he was issued with another charge memo on 12.10.1998, which ended in punishment on 14.12.2003. Similarly, even on 09.09.1998, being the date of consideration and preparation of the panel of the year 1998-1999 to the post of ASP, no charge was pending against the writ petitioner. Further, he was issued with another charge memo on 12.10.1998, which ended in punishment on 14.12.2003. Since the currency of punishment expired, there cannot be any impediment to include his name in the panel of the year 1998-1999. 11. It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants/State that the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed to the post of DSP on 16.12.1991 and pursuant to the charge memo, he was placed under suspension on 01.10.1993, which was revoked on 17.07.1994. The earlier charge was dropped on 04.12.1996. His probation was declared only in the year 2001, by proceedings dated 10.06.2001 of the second appellant/DGP. Since his probation was not declared on the date of issuance of the panel of the year 1998-1999, purportedly due to the pendency of charge against the respondent, his name was not considered for inclusion in the said panel. 12. Though another charge memo was issued on 12.10.1998, the punishment culminated thereof ended on 14.12.2003. In the meantime, in 2001, his probation was declared with effect from 14.12.1993. Immediately, after completion of his punishment period, the appellants ought to have included his name in the panel of the year 1998-1999, as no charges were pending and no departmental enquiry was in currency on the crucial date, namely on 01.06.1998, being the date of preparation of the panel for appointment to the post of ASP for the year 1998-1999, nor on the date of publication of the said panel on 09.09.1998. Therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of ASP by including his name in the panel for the year 1998-1999. In this regard, the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2000 (7) SCC 210 (cited supra), was rightly relied on by the learned Single Judge, and the relevant portion of the same reads as follows: “5. The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration. The sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration. The sealed cover procedure permits the question of his promotion to be kept in abeyance till the result of any pending disciplinary inquiry. But the findings of the disciplinary inquiry exonerating the officer would have to be given effect to as they obviously relate back to the date on which the charges are framed. If the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, it is as if the officer had not been subjected to any disciplinary inquiry. The sealed cover procedure was envisaged under the rules to give benefit of any assessment made by the Departmental Promotion Committee in favour of such an officer, if he had been found fit for promotion and if he was later exonerated in the disciplinary inquiry which was pending at the time when DPC met. The mere fact that by the time the disciplinary proceedings in the first inquiry ended in his favour and by the time the sealed cover was opened to give effect to it, another departmental enquiry was started by the Department, would not, in our view, come in the way of giving him the benefit of the assessment by the first Departmental Promotion Committee in his favour in the anterior selection. There is, therefore, no question of referring the matter to a larger Bench.” 13. Since on the crucial date, namely on 01.06.1998, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the respondent/writ petitioner, his name ought to have been included in the panel of the year 1998-1999. In this regard, it is useful to refer the following decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner: (a) MANU/TN/1809/2015 : Writ Appeal No.1287 of 2014, dated 26.06.2015 (Division Bench of this Court) (The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and another Vs. J.Sivakumar): 6. In this regard, it is useful to refer the following decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner: (a) MANU/TN/1809/2015 : Writ Appeal No.1287 of 2014, dated 26.06.2015 (Division Bench of this Court) (The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 and another Vs. J.Sivakumar): 6. It is indisputable and undeniable that during the relevant period, i.e., between the crucial date of 01.06.2008 and the date of consideration of approval of panel, viz., 29.06.2009, there was no departmental enquiry and also the punishment of postponement of increment for two years without cumulative effect stood modified to imposition of censure, which never comes in the way of consideration for promotion and as such, the respondent is entitled to consideration for empanelment for promotion to the post of DSP.” (b) 1991 Supp (2) SCC 199 = MANU/SC/0089/1989 (C.O.Arumugam and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others: “5. As to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state that every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principle. The promotion of persons against whom charge has been framed in the disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted.” 14. Furthermore, the subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent/writ petitioner will be of no consequence, as the currency of punishment imposed thereof ended even on 14.12.2003. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of ASP of the year 1998-1999. In fact, the learned Single Judge, by considering all the above aspects, by a well-considered judgment, had set aside the letter dated 07.04.2004, which was impugned in the writ petition. In fact, the learned Single Judge, by considering all the above aspects, by a well-considered judgment, had set aside the letter dated 07.04.2004, which was impugned in the writ petition. We do not find any valid reason to interfere with the same, more particularly, in view of the above decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner. 15. Hence, for the foregoing reasonings, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. is closed.