JUDGMENT : T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. We have heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for Government appearing for the respondents. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2019, in W.P.(MD)No.9002 of 2015. 3. The only issue which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant's name can be passed over and not included in the panel for promotion to the post of Handloom officer on the ground that a charge memo was issued much after the crucial date. In this regard, it is relevant to note Section 7(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service Act), 2016 which reads as follows : “Mere filing of cases in Courts by the appropriate investigation Authority against a member of service, shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list. If specific charges are framed or charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case on the crucial date his name shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list”. 4. In terms of the above provisions, what would be relevant is whether charge proceedings is pending as on the crucial date. According to the appellant, on the crucial date ie., 01.03.2014, there was no charge proceedings pending and charge memo was issued only on 12.01.2015. In the light of Section 7 of the conditions of Service Act, the competent authority who draws the panel for promotion has to consider the case of the candidate based on the said provisions namely, Section 7(1). Therefore, we are not agreeable with the findings rendered by the learned Single Bench in paragraph No.5, by laying down the broad proposition that pendency of charge even after the crucial date would be a bar. In fact, we find that there are no adequate reasons to support such a conclusion apart from the statutory provisions having not been taken note of. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision rendered in the writ petition cannot be taken to be laying down a general legal principal. 5. For the above reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision rendered in the writ petition cannot be taken to be laying down a general legal principal. 5. For the above reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed in the writ petition is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner by taking note of Section 7(1) and pass appropriate orders within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs.