JUDGMENT : PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed in W.P. No. 5919 of 2007. 1. The Government has filed this intra-court appeal against the order of the writ court dated 22.11.2011 passed in W.P. No. 5919 of 2007, which was originally filed as O.A. No. 4224 of 2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and the same has been transferred to this court on abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 2. The said writ petition, after hearing both the parties, was disposed of on 22.11.2011, directing the first appellant herein to include the name of the petitioner in the panel of Superintendents fit for promotion to the post of Personal Assistant (Administration) drawn for the year 2001-2002 in G.O.D. No. 642 at an appropriate place and to promote him notionally from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted, and further directed the first appellant herein to send proposals of revised pension to the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, in a time bound manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the Government is on appeal. 3. The respondent herein joined Police service as Typist on 20.10.1968 and was promoted as Assistant in the year 1977. Later he became Superintendent on 01.02.1989. He was due for promotion as Personal Assistant (Administration) for the year 2001-2002 as per the seniority list of superintendents, drawn by the second appellant in his Memorandum dated 31.5.1999. The respondent’s seniority was assigned at S. No. 371. The first appellant herein had published the panel of Superintendents on 23.05.2002, who are fit for promotion as Personal Assistant (Administration) by recruitment by transfer. Unfortunately, the respondent’s name was not included in the list though names of his juniors were included. 4. In this regard, it is to be noted that the crucial date for drawing the panel was 01.09.2000 and on the date of promotion, namely the publication of the list on 03.06.2002, the respondent claimed that no punishment or charge was pending under Rule 17(b) or 17(a) nor any charge-sheet was filed before any criminal court, to deny him promotion. 5. However, it is admitted that when he was working as a Superintendent, there were certain irregularities in the settlement of fuel bills and certain vouchers were found missing. 5. However, it is admitted that when he was working as a Superintendent, there were certain irregularities in the settlement of fuel bills and certain vouchers were found missing. A case was registered in Crime No. 8/92 against one Gajendran, who is in charge of the settlement of fuel bills. On 28.06.2000, the respondent was issued with summons by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore and on 08.02.2001, he was also included as accused in C.C. No. 200/1997. 6. A criminal revision petition was filed before this court and an order of stay was obtained on 28.06.2001. In the criminal revision, it has been mentioned that the occurrence of the incident was between 1.1.1989 and 22.2.1992. FIR was registered on 22.02.1992. Final report was filed on 31.3.1997. On 17.04.2000, the Inspector of Police, has filed a Memo before the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore, for adding the name of the respondent as an accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate II, Cuddalore, allowed the Memo by adding the respondent as an accused on 08.02.2001. Therefore, as on the crucial date for drawing the panel, namely 1.9.2000, amended charge-sheet/Memo was pending before the criminal court. 7. Further, there were 17(b) charges pending against the respondent for three delinquencies, of which two of them were proved after due enquiry, and by an order dated 29.4.2003, punishment of reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect, was awarded. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), who also confirmed the punishment. 9. From the above facts, it is clear that there was a criminal case pending against the respondent on the crucial date for drawing the panel, namely 01.09.2000. The charge-sheet was quashed only on 03.02.2003. The crucial date for drawal of panel, for appointment as Personal Assistant (Administration) for the year 2001-02 was 1.9.2000 and the panel period was between 5.3.2001 and 4.3.2002. The check period is between 1.9.1995 and 31.08.2000. Two of the charges, which were proved, were pertain to the period between April 1992 and March 2003. The punishment was awarded on 29.04.2003 on the above proved charges. The check period is between 1.9.1995 and 31.08.2000. Two of the charges, which were proved, were pertain to the period between April 1992 and March 2003. The punishment was awarded on 29.04.2003 on the above proved charges. Any charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and any punishment, awarded after the crucial date, but before the actual promotion, also will be held against the officer. Therefore, though the charge-sheet in the criminal case was quashed by this court, he was not eligible for inclusion in the panel of Superintendents for the year 2001-2002, as he has been awarded with punishment of pay reduction in the simultaneous department action under Rule 17(b) subsequently. It is also settled principle that the departmental action as well as the criminal proceedings can be simultaneously proceeded with and orders may be passed by the competent authorities. 10. In the case on hand, though the charge-sheet was quashed by this court or the charges against the respondent were proved and allowed to become final, due to which the name of the respondent could not be included in the promotion panel. In fact, the learned single Judge has specifically found that the reason for non inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the panel was that he was facing a criminal case at the relevant point of time. Merely because the petitioner was allowed to retire from service and the criminal charges were quashed in the year 2003, it cannot be stated that there is no impediment for considering his name for inclusion in the aforesaid panel. 11. In such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that during the check in period, there were both criminal case as well as departmental proceedings pending and therefore, the appellants had rightly not included the name of the respondent and he was allowed to retire after recovering the amount due from him. In such circumstances, the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition without considering the same, is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge dated 22.11.2011 passed in W.P. No. 5919 of 2007 is set aside. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.