Mr.M.Damodharan, vs The District Collector,

2026:MHC:3554
WP No. 2088 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-08-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 2088 of 2022
Mr.M.Damodharan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The District Collector,
(Panchayat Development Section),
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District - 631 501.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to
the proceeding of the District Collector, Kancheepuram in
Rc.No.7921/2014/PA2 dated 16.10.2019 and quash the same based on the
petitioner’s representation dated 08.01.2022 and direct the respondent to grant
the petitioner notional promotion as Block Development Officer as on
18.11.2005 and to grant the petitioner all consequential retirement benefits and
for further reliefs.
For Petitioner(s): P.Balamurugan
For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Sivalingam,
Government Advocate
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
dated 16.10.2019.
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 12:06:05 pm )

2026:MHC:3554
WP No. 2088 of 2022
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his
junior, viz., Srinivasan, was promoted on 18.11.2005. Though the petitioner was
eligible in all aspects, he was not considered for promotion on the sole ground
that, on the crucial date, there was a check period, as the petitioner was facing
disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It is the further contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the pendency of proceedings under Rule 17(a) is not a bar
for considering the petitioner for promotion, whereas the respondent rejected his
claim for promotion on the ground that there was a check period of punishment
against the petitioner, as the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of
“Censure” on 02.10.2005. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the concept of check period was held to be illegal by the Full
Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.315 of 2011 etc., batch, dated 27.04.2011.
Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Government Advocate and would contend that, according to Schedule XI, the
pendency of disciplinary proceedings is a bar to inclusion in the promotion
panel. Whereas, on the crucial date, viz., 01.03.2005, disciplinary proceedings
were pending against the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, the denial of promotion is in
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 12:06:05 pm )

2026:MHC:3554
WP No. 2088 of 2022
accordance with law. It is also the contention of the learned Government
Advocate that, on 02.10.2005, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment
of censure and there was also a check period. According to the Tamil Nadu
Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, censure carries a
check period of one year. Therefore, the denial of promotion cannot be found
fault with. In the meanwhile, after completion of the check period, the petitioner
retired from service on 30.11.2005. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is liable
to be dismissed.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
5. The short points that arise for consideration in the present case are: (i)
whether the pendency of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(a) is a bar for
consideration for promotion; and (ii) whether the concept of check period was
in vogue during the relevant period of the year in 2005. In respect of Rule 17(a)
of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relies upon Schedule XI. However, Schedule XI of the
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 is not
applicable to the present case, as the said Act came into force only on
14.09.2016 and the Rules which were in force during the relevant period were
the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 12:06:05 pm )

2026:MHC:3554
WP No. 2088 of 2022
6. It is an admitted fact that, according to the aforesaid Rules, proceedings
under Rule 17(a) are not a bar to include a person in the promotion panel. Even
under the present Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service)
Act, 2016, as per Schedule XI, Part-A, II (2), pendency of proceedings under
Rule 17(b) alone is a ground for not including an employee in the promotion
panel. Further, Schedule XI, Part-A, II (4), specifically provides that the
issuance of a show cause notice or framing of charges 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.
Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the pendency of
charges under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules cannot be a ground for denying promotion, either under the
Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 or under
the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules.
7. The next aspect to be considered is as to whether, when the junior of
the petitioner was considered for promotion, the petitioner suffered from any
disqualification on account of the punishment of “Censure” imposed on
02.10.2005. Admittedly, in order to invoke the concept of currency of
punishment in respect of “Censure”, the same cannot be made applicable, as
censure is only in the nature of a warning. However, it is the contention of the
learned Government Advocate that there was a check period of one year.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 12:06:05 pm )

2026:MHC:3554
WP No. 2088 of 2022
8. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner invites the attention
of this Court to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)
No.315 of 2011 etc., batch, dated 27.04.2011, wherein the Full Bench has held
that the embargo put on the right of Government servant for being considered
for promotion for a further period, after the period of minor punishment is over,
in the name of check period, viz., one year in the case of censure and five years
in the case other minor punishments is illegal and impermissible under the
statutory rules.
9. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the alleged check period introduced under the Tamil Nadu State and
Subordinate Services Rules was held to be illegal. Further, as rightly contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as on the date when the petitioner’s
junior was considered for promotion, there was absolutely no bar for
considering the petitioner for promotion. Whereas, in the present case, on the
aforesaid flimsy grounds, the petitioner’s claim for promotion was rejected,
which has definitely affected the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court
finds sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
respondent.
10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 is hereby
set aside. The respondent is directed to promote the petitioner notionally from
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 12:06:05 pm )

2026:MHC:3554
WP No. 2088 of 2022
the date on which his junior was considered for promotion. Further, the
respondent is directed to re-calculate the petitioner’s pensionary benefits based
upon the aforesaid notional promotion. It is made clear that the petitioner shall
not be entitled to any monetary benefits from the date of notional promotion till
the date of his retirement.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No
costs.
27-08-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
To
The District Collector,
(Panchayat Development Section),
Kanchipuram,
Kanchipuram District - 631 501.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 12:06:05 pm )

2026:MHC:3554
WP No. 2088 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 2088 of 2022
27-08-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/09/2026 12:06:05 pm )