TMT PRASANNA KUMARI Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to settle all the terminal benefits due to her husband forthwith with interest at 18% per annum and family pension to the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts that are required for the disposal of the case is as follows: The petitioner's husband by name Krishnados was employed as a Casual Labourer in the first respondent Electricity Board in the year 1965. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of a Helper and during the year 1977, he was switched over to the post of cleaner. During 1978, Krishnadoss was charged for an offence under Section 436 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year by the criminal court. Against that a revision was filed in Crl.R.C.No.112 of 1998 before this Court and this Court while confirming the conviction, reduced the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone. Thereafter on 23.12.1982 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner's husband calling for explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Against the said show cause notice, a suit was filed in O.S.No.209 of 1983 on the file of District Munsif, Ambasamudharam. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 30.1.1986 but a finding was given to the effect that the order of termination dated 23.12.1982 is illegal. Though the suit was dismissed, the respondent board filed an appeal in A.S.No.169/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi against the said finding. The lower appellate Court allowed the first appeal by order dated 23.2.1988. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed second appeal in S.A.No.461/88. Ultimately the second appeal was allowed and the order passed in the appeal was set aside. Therefore, the original order passed by the District Munsif,Ambasamudram has been revived. The show cause notice for dismissal has been set aside. Hence, there is no order of dismissal and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits. Since no enquiry was conducted as per the standing order No.36, the petitioner was deemed to be in service. Therefore the present writ petition has been filed seeking for the relief as stated above.

(3.) The case of the defendant board is that the petitioner's husband was placed under suspension on 16.2.1978 immediately after conviction. Thereafter on 23.12.1982 the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner's husband as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Thereafter, on 23.3.1983, the order of termination was also passed . But only subsequent to that, on 30.3.2003, the suit was filed before the District Munsif Court, Ambasamudharam. In view of the injunction passed in I.A.No.1102 of 1983, the petitioner was permitted to attend the work. The petitioner had challenged only the show cause notice and not the order of termination. Though the order of termination was passed on 23.3.1983; there was no executable decree passed by the Civil Court and therefore, no appeal could be filed, was the finding given in the second appeal by this Court. Thereafter he was relieved from duty with effect from 24.2.1988 on termination of his service. This order was not challenged. Therefore, inasmuch as the order passed on 23.3.1983 has not been challenged, the dismissal order stands and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.