Pendency of Rule 17(b) disciplinary charges bars inclusion in the promotion panel.

The first respondent, an Administrative Officer, sought quashing of a charge memorandum dated 18 February 2023 issued against him under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and a direction for promotion as Deputy Director (Administration)

The charges alleged that he had failed to follow recruitment rules while processing official files; the charge memorandum contained a statement of imputations, relied-upon documents, and eight witnesses

The promotion panel for 2022–23 had 1 September 2022 as its crucial date and was published on 13 March 2023. Since the Rule 17(b) charge memorandum had been issued before publication of the panel, the first respondent’s name was deferred and omitted from the approved list

The Single Judge granted relief, leading the Director of Medical Education to prefer the present writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent

Whether the Rule 17(b) charge memorandum was liable to be quashed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or mala fides

Whether the pendency of the Rule 17(b) disciplinary charges barred the first respondent’s inclusion in the approved promotion list for 2022–23

Whether the first respondent was entitled to a direction for promotion as Deputy Director (Administration) despite the pending disciplinary proceedings

The Court applied the settled principles governing judicial review of charge memoranda: issuance of a charge memorandum ordinarily does not create a cause of action for writ proceedings; the merits of the charges cannot ordinarily be adjudicated under Article 226; interference is permissible only on limited grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or mala fides; and allegations of mala fides must be specifically pleaded, proved beyond doubt, and ordinarily directed against and established against the concerned person in his personal capacity

The Court further applied the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, particularly Section 7(1) and Schedule XII, Part A(I), Clause II(VIII), under which the pendency of charges framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is a bar to inclusion of the employee’s name in the approved promotion list

The charge memorandum set out specific allegations, imputations, supporting documents, and witnesses, demonstrating that it had been issued through the prescribed disciplinary procedure and was not shown to suffer from jurisdictional defect

The first respondent’s assertions that the charges were false, motivated, and selectively framed involved disputed questions of fact. Such matters required examination of original records, production of evidence, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and could not be conclusively determined in writ proceedings on the basis of affidavits alone

The allegation of mala fides was also too general and unsupported by proof sufficient to justify quashing the charge memorandum

As to promotion, the Rule 17(b) charge memorandum was issued on 18 February 2023, before the approved panel was published on 13 March 2023; consequently, the statutory bar under Schedule XII applied, and the omission of the first respondent’s name was legally consistent with the governing service rules

It further held that the pendency of the Rule 17(b) charges barred the first respondent’s inclusion in the promotion panel, defeating his claim for promotion

The writ order dated 26 July 2023 in W.P. No. 10484 of 2023 was set aside; the writ appeal was allowed without costs.

The disciplinary authority was directed to proceed with and conclude the departmental enquiry as expeditiously as possible on its merits, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed