Employee Facing Departmental Action For Corruption Can't Claim Promotion As Right Merely Because Name Was Included In Panel: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar observed that Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules 2016 and the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules stipulate that only an officer with clean records should be promoted to a higher post. The court thus held that if any tainted officer is promoted only on the ground that his name was included in the panel despite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the same would be against the object of the law.

“The law stipulates that an officer with clean records must be promoted to a higher post. If any tainted officer is promoted on the ground that his name was included in the panel and therefore, despite the initiation of disciplinary proceedings he should be promoted to the higher post, the whole object of the procedures as well as the provisions under the Act for promotion will be defeated. The rule of constructive interpretation requires that the Act as well as the procedures contemplated therein are to be read conjointly and holistically to ensure that promotion Rules achieve its goal,” the court observed.

The bench further observed that a panel was only a list of eligible officers and not promotion itself. The court thus held that being included in the panel for promotion does not confer any right, and the same accrues only after the issuance of the order of promotion.

“It is immaterial that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated before or after preparation of the panel. Panel is list of eligible officers and not promotion. It is procedural and cannot be construed as promotion. Thus, no right accrues. Right accrues only after issuance of an order of promotion,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, challenging the order of the single judge, directing the State to grant promotion to an employee whose name was included, but who was not given promotion on account of pending disciplinary proceedings.

The employee was holding the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration and his name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Additional Inspector General of Registration. After preparation of the panel, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee on allegations of corruption, and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for the conduct of an enquiry. Considering the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the government deferred the grant of promotion to the employee, and a Government Order was issued in this regard.

The employee challenged this order before the single judge. While ruling in favour of the employee, the single judge held that once the panel is prepared, departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated after the preparation of the panel would not be a bar to promotion in view of the TN Government Servants Rules. Against this order, the State preferred the appeal.

The State argued that the proposition laid down by the single judge was counter to the purpose and object of the rules. It was submitted that mere preparation of the panel would not confer any right, and the government had the power to defer promotion until the department proceedings were disposed of.

The employee, on the other hand, argued that there was no bar on the grant of promotion once the employee's name was included in the panel. It was argued that preparation of the panel confers a right on the officer and thus the writ court's order was in consonance with the Act and Rules.

The court noted that promotion could not be claimed as an absolute right by a government servant and mere inclusion in the panel would not confer any right to claim promotion as a vested right. The court held that preparation of panel is only a departmental procedure to finalise the names of eligible candidates and the same would not grant any right to a government servant.

The court held that framing of charges under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the currency of promotion is a bar for promotion and the instructions in this regard has to be followed by the Government scrupulously.

The court underlined that an officer facing charged before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was not eligible for inclusion of name in the panel. The court thus concluded that even if the officer's name is included in the panel, it would only be a procedural process and the officer would not be eligible for promotion.

Thus, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single judge.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. P. V. Balasubramanian, Additional Advocate General

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. Navaneetha Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr. R. Naveen

Case Title: The Secretary to Government and Another v VA Anand

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 321

Case No: WA No. 435 of 2024