LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-815

J IRUDAYARAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS

Decided On February 08, 2011
J Irudayaraj Appellant
V/S
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the correctness of the order of dismissal, Mr. S. Selvathirumurugan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the alleged disqualification pertains to the year 1990 and there is an inordinate delay of 18 years in framing the issues. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings is actuated with a mala fide intention and in order to defeat the Petitioner's genuine claim of seniority and deployment. In this context, he relied on decisions of this Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 4 CTC 403 and S. Rathinavelu v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board, 2009 2 CTC 513.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that even if the delinquent is suspended pending enquiry, he is entitled to subsistence grant, but the Petitioner was denied salary for the month of December' 2009. Therefore, the Petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to effectively defend the charges. In support of the above contentions, he placed reliance on 3 the decisions of the Apex Court in Ghanshamdas Srivastava v. State of M.P., 1971 3 SCC 802, Ghanshamdas Srivastava v. State of M.P., 1971 3 SCC 802, State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale, 1983 3 SCC 387 and Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., 2000 7 SCC 90.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that during the above said period, the Petitioner's wife was seriously ill and also underwent an operation on 07.12.2000 and subsequently, admitted in Om Sakthi Hospital on 01.01.2001. He therefore submitted that the third Respondent was bent upon to dismiss the Petitioner from service and has failed to consider the mental agony and financial constraint faced by the writ Petitioner. When representations and telegrams were sent, explaining the cause for not attending the personal hearing, the third Respondent ought to have provided a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to defend the charges. As there is a denial of opportunity to the writ Petitioner, he prayed to set aside the proceedings on that score.