S RAMANUJAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Special Government Pleader takes notice. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) The present writ petition is by the petitioner who has lost in his original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'). Some facts will be necessary to understand the controversy involved.

(3.) The petitioner S.Ramanujam was trapped by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing while he was working as Junior Engineer at Srivilliputhur. A criminal case was instituted against him. This was in 1993. The petitioner was due to retire on 30.4.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, he was not so allowed to retire from service using the powers under Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules. Thereafter, probably because the petitioner did not get the subsistence allowance or provisional pension, as the case may be, the petitioner approached the tribunal by way of an original application. This was in the year 2002. The said original application was registered as O.A.No.1035 of 2002. The tribunal allowed that application and held that he was entitled to the subsistence allowance till such time as he was finally dismissed. However, the tribunal also noted the fact that in the mean time, by the judgment dated 28.6.2001 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur had convicted the petitioner and though he had filed an appeal against the said conviction before the High Court of Madras, there was no stay of the conviction judgment. The tribunal then proceeded to hold that till such time as the petitioner is not dismissed and for that purpose a show cause notice is issued to him, the petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of subsistence allowance. Probably taking a cue from this judgment, a show cause notice seems to have been issued by the Chief Engineer on 10.4.2002. This show cause notice came to be challenged subsequently by the petitioner by way of O.A.No.2563 of 2002 and the tribunal, however, dismissed the same taking the view that once there was a conviction in the criminal case for offences under sections 7,10, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the show cause notice could be given by the department for his dismissal.