K SOLOMON Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order of the respondent dated 4/8/2008 dismissing the petitioner from service without conducting any enquiry, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE facts that led the petitioner to file the writ petition, as put forth by him in his affidavit in support of the writ petition are stated here under:

(3.) THE first and foremost submission that was made on behalf of the petitioner by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that (a) When the disciplinary authority had already initiated action against the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules framed under the Article 309 of the Constitution, the procedure contemplated under the said Rule ought to have been observed. Having invoked Rule 17(e), it is not open to the respondent to short circuit the guarantee enshrined under Article 311 of the Constitution. (b) THE power conferred under Clause (C) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution cannot be exercised for collateral purpose. THE respondent failed to give reasons as to why it had to be dispensed with. (c) THE offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be considered as affecting the security of the State. (d) THE respondent has no jurisdiction to exercise the powers vested under Clause (C) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.