The District Collector v. Jaber Sadiq

of interim stay. In view of the order of stay, on 21.09.2016 the appelant has revoked the order of suspension and posted the respondent as a Deputy Block Development Officer Camp Office, Dindigul.

2.1. While the respondent was working in the said capacity, a panel for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer for the year 2019-2020 was prepared. Out of 9 names in the panel, the respondent's name was shown at Serial No.7 in the list. However, he was not promoted. The appellant by proceedings dated 14.06.2019, informed the respondent that in view of the pendency of the criminal case as well as the charge memo dated 28.08.2017 issued to him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, his name was not considered. Therefore, the respondent filed an appeal dated 21.06.2019 before the appellant which came to be rejected on 03.07.2019.

2.2. Against the said order, the respondent filed writ petition and the Writ Court allowed the writ petition, holding that when criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are pending for long time, the

3/8

respondent can be promoted, after getting an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that in the event of his failure in the criminal case, he can be reverted to the lower post. Challenging the said order, this intra-court appeal is filed by the District Collector.

3. Assailing the impugned order, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant would submit that the Writ Court failed to consider that Schedule-XI(6) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 specifically imposes a bar for inclusion of a member of Government service in the approved list for promotion, if he/she is arrested for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the present case, the respondent was arrested on 07.04.2015 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul, in a trap case and therefore, the Writ Court ought not to have allowed the writ petition, ignoring the specific bar for promotion as stated above. He would further contend that Schedule-XI(8) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 also prohibits inclusion of the member of service in the approved list for promotion, if such member of Government service is issued with a

4/8

charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. However, without adverting to the same, the Writ Court relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129 in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. P.Rani, where, it has been held that when criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are pending for long time, an employee can be promoted, after getting an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that in the event of his failure in the criminal case, he can be reverted to the lower post, and allowed the writ petition. The said approach is completely erroneous since the criminal case itself was registered in 2015 and therefore, it cannot be said to be pending for a long time. Thus, the learned Additional Advocate General would pray for setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that relying upon the judgment reported in 2011 (3) CTC 129 in the case of Deputy Inspector General of Police vs. P.Rani, the Writ Court has rightly held that when criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are pending for a long time, the respondent can be

5/8

promoted, after getting an affidavit of undertaking to the effect that in the event of his failure in the criminal case, he can be reverted to the lower post. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The respondent/writ petitioner has been arrested on 07.04.2015 by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul, in a trap case. He was also proceeded departmentally by framing charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, Schedule-XI(6) and (8) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 clearly imposes a bar for inclusion of the respondent's name who was arrested in a trap case and also issued with a 17(b) charge memo. Thus, on both the grounds namely, arrest in a vigilance case and pendency of 17(b) charges, the respondent is not entitled to be included in the approved list for promotion in view of Schedule-XI(6) and (8) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. However, the

6/8

Writ Court has erroneously allowed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.11.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.21879 of 2019, is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[J.N.B, J.] [S.S.Y, J.]

19.03.2025

Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No bala

To

The District Collector, Dindigul District.

7/8

J.NISHA BANU, J.

AND

S.SRIMATHY, J.

bala

JUDGMENT MADE IN

W.A(MD)No.591 of 2024

DATED : 19.03.2025

8/8