A RAMAGUPTAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISONS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that while he was in service charges had been framed against him and he was placed under suspension, on 21.5.1983. Based on the disciplinary proceedings against him, he was imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement, with effect from 26.10.1984. THE punishment imposed on the petitioner was confirmed in the appeal filed by him. THEreafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.2402 of 1987 and the said writ petition was transferred to the Tamil Administrative Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.1358 of 1989. Since the petitioner's application had been dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner had filed a review application in R.A.No.58 of 1990, which was allowed and the punishment of termination imposed on the petitioner was set aside and the respondent was directed to inflict the punishment of cutting of pension by Rs.10/- per month for a period of five years from the date of the petitioner's retirement.

(3.) BASED on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs prayed for in the present petition. The impugned order passed by the respondent has been issued pursuant to the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 4.3.93, in R.A.No.58 of 1990. However, the petitioner has not been exonerated of the charges leveled against him. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.