(Prayer: Review Petition filed under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 06.06.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.14686 of 2024 and if deemed fit to modify the above order of the effect to comply to issue show cause for the inadvertent inclusion of the name of the respondent/petitioner in the panel drawn for the post of Quality Inspector on 02.03.2024 and consequent promotion order issued on 08.03.2024.)

1. Writ Petition No.14686 of 2024 was filed seeking for a certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 15.03.2024 of the respondent, namely, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and to quash the same and continue to employ the petitioner in service in the promoted post as Quality Inspector.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that by an order dated 03.03.2024, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Quality Inspector from the post of Assistant Quality Inspector. Thereafter, by the order dated 15.03.2024, the same was cancelled and hence the Writ Petition.

3. The matter was heard at the admission stage itself and after considering the both sides arguments, the following order was passed. It is essential to extract paragraph No.5, which reads as follows:

                   “5. A perusal of the impugned order and the reference stated therein, it is clear that no show-cause notice has been issued prior to the passing of the impugned order. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands allowed in the following terms:

                   (i) the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 is quashed and set aside;

                   (ii) however, the respondent will be at liberty to decide the matter afresh by issuing show-cause notice and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to make a written representation as well as oral hearing and after considering the objections raised by the petitioner.

                   There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.15938 of 2024 is closed.”

4. It is the claim of the petitioner that even after the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was not permitted to continue duty as Quality Inspector and he is continued only as Assistant Quality Inspector and therefore Contempt Petition No.2054 of 2024 is filed. Thereafter, Review Application No.224 of 2024 was filed by the respondent Corporation. The prayer in the review application is to review or recall the said order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28544 of 2024. It is reasoned that since the writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself, the respondent Corporation was not able to place their detailed facts on record. It is their case that the order of promotion though passed on 08.03.2024, was not communicated or served on the petitioner. The panel was prepared and the promotion order was issued erroneously without taking into account the charge memorandum that was issued on 04.01.2024. Upon realising the error, the original order was not ordered to be served on the petitioner and the order was cancelled.

5. In the meantime, the petitioner himself managed to take a print out of the e-mail of the original order and had filed the above writ petition. Therefore, so long as the order was not served on the petitioner, it cannot be deemed that the petitioner was promoted and subsequently the order was also cancelled. Therefore, there is no requirement of issue of any showcase notice. As a matter of fact, as per the rule that is prevalent on the relevant date and as of today, the charge memorandum even if it is issued after the crucial date, but is issued as on the date of the drawal of the panel, it still has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of suitability of the officer for inclusion in the panel. Therefore, the impugned order recalling the earlier order was rightly passed and the order passed in the writ petition has to be review.

6. Heard Mr.S.Venkataraman, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the employee. The Learned Counsel first drew the attention of this Court to the relevant Service Regulations. As far as the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation is concerned, it is governed by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Employees’ Service Regulations, 1989, which were framed and adopted by the Board and it has been held by this Court to have statutory force. However, there has been periodical amendments, by making amendment as well as by adopting the Government Orders and circulars. What exists as of date is only a compilation of the original service regulations together with the amendments and the Government Orders periodically adopted from time to time. It is stated by the Learned Additional Advocate General that the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation has appointed a committee to properly come up with the final version of the regulations that stand as on date.

7. A reading of the latest Regulations book which is published containing amendments upto 31.12.2017, nobody can make out the correct position as on date. Be that as it may, with reference to the tabular column that is contained in the paragraph No.57 of the book, as far as the issue of promotion is concerned, it contains four columns: Column No.1 mentions about the category of posts; it mentions about the crucial date for acquiring the qualifications for the prescribed post at Column No.2; it prescribes the date on which the reports due to be sent by the Subordinate Officers to the Head Office as Column No.3 and date fixed for drawing up of panel by the appointing Authorities is contained in Column No.4.

8. As far as the post of Quality Inspector, which is now the subject matter of the writ petition is concerned, the same is contained in Entry 6 of the Quality Control Wing. The 1st of September is the crucial date for acquiring of the qualification; the 10th of September is the date on which the reports have to be sent to the Subordinate Officers and the date of drawal of the panel is 1st October. Admittedly, the present panel was of the year 2023. In this case, the crucial date is 01.09.2023, on which date the charge memo was not pending. As per the Original Regulations, a charge memo under the Major Penalty Regulations of the Corporation has to be pending as on the crucial date. However, the Learned Additional Advocate General submits that subsequently the various circulars which are issued periodically have been adopted by the Corporation and one such Currency of Punishment circular, which is issued in the year 2004, is adopted by the Corporation and according to the Learned Additional Advocate General, currently the Rule reads as follows:

                   “3) Currency of Punishment

                   Whenever an officer is undergoing a punishment and there is currency of punishment on the crucial date the name should be passed over at the time of first consideration irrespective of the time of occurrence of irregularity. If the currency of that punishment continues at the time of subsequent consideration, for the next panel then the name may be included in the panel, on the basis that a name should not be passed over for the second time on account of the same punishment.

                   4) It is further clarified that charges framed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules and any of the punishments awarded after the crucial date and till the date of issue of the Panel, shall also be taken into consideration for assessing the suitability of the Officer for inclusion in the panel.”

9. In this regard, Mr.S.Venkatraman, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2443 of 2010, (The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation vs. N.Ganesan and others). It is essential to quote paragraph No.8 of the said judgement, in which a different set of circulars was placed before the Division Bench as representing the relevant Rule. Paragraph No.8 is extracted hereunder:

                   8. The learned Standing Counsel very much relied upon the Circular issued by the appellant Corporation dated 05.07.1988 where, inter alia, the following has been stated:

                   “1) Charges should not be pending as on the crucial date, i.e. 1st April of each year.

                   2) If charges are pending on the crucial date and final orders passed subsequent to that date and before the drawal of the panel (either dropping further action or issuing a warning or awarding a censure), the cases of those employees will be taken up for consideration for inclusion in the panel, if otherwise qualified.

                   3) If charges are framed subsequent to the crucial date and still pending disposal till the panel is drawn, the case of those employees cannot be considered for inclusion irrespective of the nature of charge.”

10. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench had categorically held that Clause 3 of the rule, as above, cannot override Clause 1 and held that it is mandatory that the charge Memorandum should be pending as on the crucial date. It is essential to extract paragraph No.16, which reads as follows:

                   “16. If we consider Clause 1 and 3 of Circular dated 05.07.1988 in juxtaposition, we can easily come to the conclusion that the primacy of the Clause 1, which says that, on the crucial date no charge shall be pending against an employee, cannot be overridden by Clause 3 as it is only supplementary not supplanting to Clause 1. Therefore, on the crucial date i.e. 01.10.1992 since there has been no charge framed against the employee, his inclusion in the list of panel for the promotion to the post of Quality Inspector for the year 1992 cannot be hampered. Therefore, the rejection made in this regard dated 12.11.2003 is bad in law and therefore, the learned Judge is right in coming to a conclusion that the said order which is impugned before the Writ Court is to be quashed and accordingly the approach of the learned Judge in allowing the said writ petition cannot be found fault with, with the result this appeal fails.”

11. Now, the Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the correct rule, which is now pointed out, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench was not placed before it.

12. Even the Current Rule in Clause 4 was extracted supra. It can be seen that the Rule enables the authorities to withhold promotion while assessing the suitability, even if any Charge Memorandum under the Major Penalty Category (i.e., Rule 17(b) in respect of Government Servants and the Major Penalty Category under Regulation 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Regulations) is issued even after the crucial date and up to the date of issue of the panel, can also be taken into account. Even on reading the said Rule, it can be seen that it is only an enabling provision so as to consider the Charge Memorandum that are issued between the crucial date and the date of drawal of the panel. Even the date of drawal of the panel is categorically fixed under the Statutory Rules as first October of the relevant year and therefore, the Charge Memorandum in question was not even issued even on 01.10.2023 but was issued only in January 2024 and therefore, cannot be considered as an impediment even going by the Rule which is now pointed out before this Court.

13. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation shall do well to expedite the work of the Committee and to publish regulations so that different sets of Regulations are not placed before different Courts in different cases. They have to carry out all the amendments and come up with the final version so that every employee or the Officers, who are implementing the Rules can read and understand the same properly.

14. It can be seen that even considering the issue on merits the order that is passed need not be reviewed or recalled. As a matter of fact, the argument of Mr.Venkatraman, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, was the same, even in their previous writ petition and the same is recorded in paragraph No.3 of the order, which is sought to be reviewed. For ready reference, paragraph No.3 of the order is extracted hereunder:

                   “3.Mr.S.Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the said charge memorandum cannot come in the way of grant of promotion to the petitioner, since it was not pending as on the crucial date. Be that as it may, the impugned order visits the petitioner with civil consequences.”

15. With reference to the second argument relating to the non-issue of a show cause notice, it is true that the order of promotion will take into effect if only it is served on the employee. Even without serving on the employee, if the employee somehow vested with the copy of the order, he cannot claim that it is the promotion has been granted to him. There can be no quarrel with reference to the legal position that such orders before the service, can simply be rescinded or withdrawn and no show cause notice need be given. However, in this case, a perusal of the order dated 15.03.2024, does not contain any such averment that the order of promotion was not even served on the employee and that, the order of cancellation is passed even before the service of the promotion order. On the other hand, the order reads as if the promotion that was granted is cancelled.

16. Therefore, the grounds raised in the review application are based on the reasons which are not contained in the order impugned in the writ petition dated 15.03.2024. The authorities cannot plead reasons that are not contained in the impugned order to sustain the impugned order. Accordingly, both on merits and the technical grounds that are raised in the review application, are bound to fail. In view of the above, the following order is passed.

                   (i) Review Application No.224 of 2025 is hereby dismissed.

                   (ii) In view of the order being passed by this Court only today disposing of the claim of the petitioners on merits, the respondents are granted further period of 15 days to implement the order and report compliance before this Court on 05.01.2026.

17. Call the contempt petition on 05.01.2026.