P RAMASAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendent in the Transport Department. He joined as Junior Assistant in the Transport Department on 10.03.1975 and lateron promoted as Assistant on 06.02.1984. When he was working as Assistant in R.T.O's Office, Coimbatore, he was placed under suspension on 09.11.1984 and a charge memo dated 13.01.1993 was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated Government fund. Though the petitioner has submitted his explanation as early as on 15.02.1993, the department prolonged the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Original Application in No.2511 of 1994 to quash the said charge memo. THE Tribunal by order dated 02.09.1996, directed the Transport commissioner, Madras-the second respondent, to complete the enquiry and pass final orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Inspite of the directions given by the Tribunal, the enquiry was not completed . In the meanwhile, the second respondent without preparing a regular panel for promotion to the post of Superintendents, promoted 34 persons as Superintendents and most of the persons included in the panel are juniors to the petitioner. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs Chamanlal Goyal reported in (1995 2 SCC 570), the petitioner submitted that the delay in disposing of the disciplinary proceedings has seriously prejudiced the petitioner's chances of getting his name included in the panel for promotion and therefore, prayed for appropriate directions to the respondents to include his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Superintendents in the Transport Department.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

(3.) REFERENCE can also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in C.O. Arumugam and others VS State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (1991 Supple (2) SCC 199), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows: