P.MURUGESAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) The petitioner, Mr.P.Murugesan was again constrained to come to this Court questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 20.11.2011 reiterating the previous punishment of compulsory retirement that was already set aside by this Court, by a reasoned and detailed order dated 23.8.2011 passed in W.P.No.1645 of 2007.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside, since it has been passed against the petitioner without considering the grievance of the petitioner and also the direction given by this Court in its order dated 23.8.2011. Above all, when the same and similar punishment of compulsory retirement passed by the second respondent in G.O.(2D) No.349, Home (Pol.VI) Department dated 14.6.2006, confirming the order in his Proceedings in Rc.No.254131/AP/.2(2)/2002 dated 14.2.2004 was set aside by this Court on 23.8.2011 in W.P.No.1645 of 2007, the repetition of passing the same order is in violation of the order passed by this Court. Moreover, when there was a specific finding given by this Court holding that the petitioner cannot be termed as unauthorisedly absent from 5.6.99 to 30.6.99 and therefore the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against him was held wrong, as it is against the material evidence available on file, once again the same infirmity has been committed in the impugned order.