Madras High Court

A.Selvam vs The Transport Commissioner on 13 October, 2025

Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira

                                                                                                  W.P.No.19369 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 13.10.2025

                                                              CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

                                                 W.P.No.19369 of 2023
                                               & W.M.P.No.18645 of 2023


                     A.Selvam                                                            .. Petitioner

                                                               Versus

                     1.The Transport Commissioner,
                      Commissionerate of Transport & Road Safety,
                      Chepauk, Chennai-5.

                     2.The Principal Secretary,
                      Home(Transport) Department,
                      Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.                                   .. Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records
                     relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in R.No.29515/T2/2022
                     dated 06.04.2023, quash the same and consequently, directing the
                     respondents to forthwith promote the petitioner to the post of Road
                     Transport Officer w.e.f.,13.04.2017 from the date on which the immediate
                     junior was promoted and to extend all service benefits arising thereto.

                                  For Petitioner    : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

                                  For Respondents : Mr.R.V.Dinesh Rajkumar,
                                                    Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2




                     1/8



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:33 pm )
                                                                                                   W.P.No.19369 of 2023



                                                                ORDER

Challenging the rejection of the representation seeking restoration of

original seniority in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-1 and

consequential promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer and to

direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Road

Transport Officer w.e.f.,13.04.2017 from the date on which his immediate

junior was promoted and to extend all service benefits arising thereto, this

writ petition is filed.

2.The petitioner, while working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I at

Unit Office, Karaikudi, was proceeded on false arrest by the Vigilance and

Anti Corruption Department alleging acceptance of bribe between

24.12.2008 and 31.12.2008 and a criminal case in Special C.C.No.58 of

2014 on the file of Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of

Corruption Act, Sivagangai, (for short "the trial Court") was filed against

him. Though the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for

promotion dated 27.01.2017 and he was placed in Sl.No.42 and one

Murugan was placed in Sl.No.44, when promotion was given vide

proceedings of the first respondent in R.No.05155/T2/2015

(E.O.No.236/2017) on 11.04.2017, the petitioner was left out citing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:33 pm )

pendency of the criminal case. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide judgment

dated 28.10.2021, acquitted the petitioner from the charges levelled against

him. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 18.05.2022 seeking

restoration of his original seniority and promote him on a par with his junior

Murugan. However, the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 06.04.2023,

had rejected the said representation citing pendency of charges initiated

against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules (for short "The Rules"), in which, the report

of the Inquiry Officer was awaited. Assailing the said order, the present

writ petition has been filed.

3.Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mrs.R.V.Dinesh Rajkumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the

respondents.

4.Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

submit that though pending trial, a panel for promotion dated 27.01.2017

was drawn by the Joint Transport Commissioner(A), Chennai, and the

petitioner was placed at Sl.No.42, promotion was given vide proceedings

dated 11.04.2017 to the petitioner's immediate junior viz., A.Murugan,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:33 pm )

who had been placed at Sl.No.44 in the panel and he had also retired from

service on 31.05.2018. In such circumstances, though the petitioner was

acquitted in the criminal case by the trial Court, he has not been considered

for promotion, which is unsustainable. He would further submit that after

acquittal, though the petitioner had made a representation on 18.05.2022

seeking restoration of his original seniority and consequential promotion,

the act of the respondent in issuing charge memo dated 11.11.2022 directing

him to submit his written statement of defense and rejecting the

representation on 06.04.2023 citing pendency of charges initiated against

him under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules, is nothing but violation of principles of law. He would

further submit that when the allegations in the charge memo and the charges

in the criminal case are the same and when the petitioner has been acquitted

in the criminal case, the petitioner ought to have been considered for

promotion with retrospective effect as per Clause II Part-A of Schedule XI

of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016

and hence, the impugned order has to be set aside.

5.The respondents have filed counter. Mr.R.V.Dinesh Rajkumar,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:33 pm )

learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

would submit that though the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal

case, pendency of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Rules is a bar for his

promotion to the next level. Therefore, the respondents had correctly

followed the rule and the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is devoid of merits and the same has to be rejected.

6.A perusal of records would show that pending trial in Spl.C.C.No.58

of 2014, the respondents had sent updated record sheet dated 27.01.2017

for promotion including the name of the petitioner in Sl.No.42. However,

promotion was given to the petitioner's junior one Murugan, whose name

was shown in Sl.No.44 of the updated record list, vide proceedings of the

first respondent on 11.04.2017 leaving out the petitioner. Subsequently, the

trial Court, vide judgment dated 28.10.2021, had acquitted the petitioner in

the criminal case. Thereafter, on 11.11.2022, the respondents had issued a

charge memo directing the petitioner to submit his written statement of his

defense and had also rejected the representation on 06.04.2023 citing

pendency of charges framed against him under Rule 17(b) of the Rules.

7. At this juncture, it is profitable to allude to Schedule XI Part-A -II

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:33 pm )

of Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016,

which reads as under:

"II.Consideration of members for inclusion in the approved lists:-

(1) In case where enquiry (except Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings enquiry) including preliminary or detailed enquiry by the appropriate Investigating Authority is pending against a member of service and no specific charges have been framed, promotion or appointment of such member of service shall be considered on the basis of the merit revealed through Annual Confidential Reports, Record Sheets of Punishments imposed. In cases where specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case against a member of service, promotion or appointment of such member of service shall be deferred till such proceedings are concluded. On exoneration or acquittal from the charges, a member of service shall be considered for promotion or appointment with retrospective effect from the date on which is immediate junior was promoted, if he is otherwise qualified for such promotion."(emphasis supplied)

8. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was acquitted in the

criminal case on 28.10.2021 itself. However, the charge memo was issued

to the petitioner only on 11.11.2022 for the very same charges, in respect of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 08:35:33 pm )

which, the criminal case was tried, which ended in acquittal. Thus, this is a

clear case of double jeopardy. Further, issuance of charge memo on

11.11.2022 after the receipt of the petitioner's representation dated

18.05.2022, pursuant to his acquittal in the criminal case is contrary to the

Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, and in

violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the rejection of the

petitioner's representation citing pendency of charges framed under Rule

17(b) of the Rules on 06.04.2023 is unsustainable.