enquiry report was submitted. However, the Department being not satisfied with the enquiry report, had proceeded further and imposed punishment only on 09.09.2009. The learned Single Judge pointed out that for more than seven years, the Government has not chosen to pass any order and by citing the pendency of departmental proceedings, the career prospect of the writ petitioner cannot be deprived. Thus, on the date of drawing of the panel, the enquiry, which was pending, cannot be visited against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition by taking note of the fact that the crucial date for preparation of the panel was 15.08.1999 and admittedly, on that date, no charge or enquiry was pending against the respondent/writ petitioner, but the panel was prepared only in the year 2001. Unfortunately, the name of the writ petitioner was not considered at that time citing pendency of the charge sheet under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Therefore, while allowing the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge had directed the appellants/respondents to grant notional promotion and the consequential retirement benefits to the respondent/writ petitioner. The arrears payable was also restricted to 50%. Being aggrieved, the present
