WP/34135/2023 of K.VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY on 24 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in Proc. No.Ser3(2)/48496/2018, dated 20.08.2019, and the subsequent proceedings issued by the second respondent in Roc. No.14669/2018/A2, dated 07.01.2020, and quash the same insofar as the petitioner’s non-inclusion in the 2018 panel, without considering her eligibility as on the date of redrawal of the 2018 panel, is concerned, and consequently, direct the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the 2018 panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, based on her eligibility as on the crucial date, namely, 15.09.2018, and as on the original date of preparation of the panel, namely, 12.10.2018, on a par with her juniors, with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant on 09.12.2012 and was subsequently included in the temporary panel and promoted as Deputy

Tahsildar on 05.06.2018. It is the specific submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the crucial date for the promotion panel to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was 15.09.2018. In the meanwhile, a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 04.06.2018 under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). According to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, the pendency of a charge under Rule 17(a) of the Rules is not a legal bar to considering an employee for promotion. However, the respondents relied upon the punishment order dated 10.09.2018, though the said punishment order was served on the petitioner only on 27.11.2018.

2.1. It is the specific submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, since the punishment order was served on the petitioner only on 27.11.2018, the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the promotion panel dated 12.10.2018 on the ground that the punishment was in force, is factually incorrect. According to Clause 17 of Part II of Schedule XI, the punishment would take effect only from the date of service of the order. In the case in hand, the order was admittedly served on the petitioner only on 27.11.2018. It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, subsequent to the imposition of the punishment of withholding of increment, the punishment was modified to that of censure on appeal, vide order dated 24.10.2025.

3. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that a charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 04.06.2018 under Rule 17(a) of the Rules. Though a charge under Rule 17(a) of the Rules is not a bar to inclusion in the panel under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, the fact remains that, on the crucial date, namely, 15.09.2018, a punishment of withholding of increment had been imposed on the petitioner, vide punishment order dated 10.09.2018. It is the specific submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that, though the punishment order was served on a subsequent date, the punishment itself had been imposed on 10.09.2018. Therefore, the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the panel cannot be faulted with. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

5. The following dates are not in dispute. The crucial date for consideration for promotion is 15.09.2018. The punishment was imposed on the petitioner on 10.09.2018, and the punishment order was served on her on 27.11.2018. As on the crucial date, the punishment had not taken effect, as the punishment order had not yet been served on the petitioner.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner places considerable reliance upon Clauses 4, 11 and 17 of Part II of Schedule XI. Clause 4 deals with the position that any charge framed against a member of a service under Rule 17(a) of the Rules shall not be a bar to the inclusion of his or her name in the approved list. In the case in hand, the charge against the petitioner was under Rule 17(a) of the Rules. Though the charge memorandum was issued to the petitioner on 04.06.2018, as stipulated under Clause 4 of Schedule XI, the same cannot be held against the petitioner for the purpose of inclusion in the panel.

7. According to Clause 11, any punishment imposed on a member of a service within a period of five years prior to the crucial date, and a punishment of censure imposed within a period of one year prior to the crucial date, shall be held against the member of the service. This clause also not relevant to the instant case. Coming to Clause 17, any punishment imposed on a member of a service shall take effect from the date on which the punishment order is served on the member of the service. By relying upon Clause 17 vis-à-vis Clause 11, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, in the case in hand, where the punishment order was admittedly served on the petitioner only on 27.11.2018 and the crucial date was 15.09.2018, the non-consideration of the petitioner for inclusion in the 2018 panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar is contrary to law.

8. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the Clauses 4, 11 and 17 of Part II of Schedule XI of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act is as follows:- “4. Issuance of a show cause notice or charges framed under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against a member of service shall not be a bar for inclusion of his name in the approved list.

11. Any punishment (other than ‘Censure’) imposed on a member of service within a period of five years prior to the crucial date and a punishment of ‘Censure’ imposed within a period of one year prior to the crucial date shall be held against the member of service and his name shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list. Any punishment, including ‘Censure’ imposed on a member of service after the crucial date, but before actual promotion or appointment shall be held against the member of service and he shall be held against the member of service and he shall not be given promotion or appointment. 17 Any punishment imposed on a member of service under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules shall take effect from the date on which the said punishment order is served to the member of service concerned and the name of such member of service shall not be considered for inclusion in the approved list until the said punishment is over.”

9. This Court has carefully perused Clause 17 with forensic insight. On a close reading of Clause 17, this Court finds a subtle yet significant distinction between the two expressions employed in Clauses 11 and 17. The first portion of Clause 17 provides that any punishment imposed on a member of a service under Rule 8 of the Rules shall take effect from the date on which the punishment order is served on the member of the service. Therefore, Clause 17 deals with the question as to when the punishment would take effect, and, in answering the same, it stipulates that the punishment would take effect only from the date of service of the order.

10. However, Clause 11 deals with the punishment imposed and does not specifically refer to the date on which the punishment takes effect. According to Clause 11, the very imposition of the punishment is sufficient to be held against the member of the service. In the case in hand, though the punishment was modified on appeal on 24.10.2025 from “withholding of increment” to “censure”, such modification relates back to the date of the original imposition of punishment, qua, 10.09.2018. Admittedly, prior to the crucial date, namely, 15.09.2018, a punishment had been imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, though the punishment would take effect only from the date of service of the punishment order, what is essential for the purpose of Clause 11 is whether a punishment had been imposed or not. Clause 11 specifically refers to the word imposition of punishment and not it’s commencement.

11. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, and, accordingly, finds no infirmity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary Commissioner Of Revenue Administration, Commissionerate of Revenue Administration and Disaster Management, Ezhilagam Chepauk, Chennai-05.

2. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapui -636 705.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 34135 of 2023 16-10-2026