V SUBRAMANIAM Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse pension arrears, gratuity arrears, medical allowance and other allowances with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petitioner's superannuation on 31.12.1991 and continue to pay his monthly pension.

(2.) Today, when the above writ petition was taken up for admission, on perusal of the pleadings, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, what could be gathered is that the petitioner joined the respondent department in the year 1958 as Sales Assistant and subsequently got promoted as Manager and while he was functioning as Assistant Manager, Khadi Craft, Cuddalore, the District Khadi and Village Industries Officer, Cuddalore by order dated 23.05.1974 had placed him under suspension, pending investigation and framing of the charges relating to irregularities; that in the enquiry, he was not given full opportunity to cross examine the witness; that in the conclusion of the charges framed against the petitioner except one charge was held proved and it was proposed to dismiss him from service and in fact by order dated 11.11.1976, the first respondent dismissed him from service of the respondent department.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that he preferred an appeal before the second respondent herein and that was also dismissed; that he filed W.P.No.1533 of 1979, which also came to be dismissed and he preferred an appeal in W.A.No.509 of 1979 in which Division Bench of this Court as per its Judgment dated 05.11.1985, allowed the appeal quashed the order of dismissal and directed the respondents to pay all the attendant benefits arising there from further giving liberty to the respondent to conduct an enquiry afresh; that of much pursuance that the respondent reinstated him in service; that while disposing of the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent, the honourable Supreme Court directed the respondents to deposit the full amount of backwages payable to him, consequent to which the petitioner was permitted to withdraw one third of it by this Court.