P MUTHUSAMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of certioraritied Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his order No. P.S.S. No. 2191 dated 12-10-89 and to quash (he same to reinstate the petitioner in service and also to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner difference in pay, bonus. Pongal gift, etc., in pursuance of the petition given by the petitioner to second respondent on 24-7-89.) 1. When the miscellaneous petitions came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken tor final disposal.

(2.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows: ?to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ or order ordiretion in the nature of a writ calling for the records of the second respondent in his order No P.S.S. No. 2191 dated 12-10-1989 and to quash the same to reinstate the petitioner in service and also to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner difference in pay, bonus, Pongal gift, etc. in pursuance of the peti tion giiven by the petitioner to the second respondent on 24.7-1989?

(3.) PER contra, Mr. S. Jayararaan, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation contends that the Corporation has got the power to pass the impugned order under the Standing Orders, that though the reasoning given in the impugned order may be wrong, this Court should not interfere with it, when the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and conviction are existing as on date. The learned counsel further contends that the pendency of the criminal appeal in C.A. 713 of 1985 before this Court cannot entitle the petitioner to get reinstatement of the service and that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent Corporation is perfectly right under the Standing Orders of the Corporatiou. The learned counsel brings to my attention the decision in Subbaraman v. The State 1 , for this proposition.