LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-81

K KARUNANIDHI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On September 30, 2009
K. KARUNANIDHI (DECEASED) K. KANTHA Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent culminating in the proceedings in Na.Ka.A3-4164/96 dated 26.12.1997, quash the same and to set aside the order of dismissal and to direct the reinstatement of the applicant in the post of Assistant in the office of the respondents with all backwages with effect from 30.1.1992.) Heard both sides.

(2.) THIS writ petition arose out of O.A.No,4822 of 1998 filed by the original petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, it was transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No,35110 of 2006.

(3.) IT was also stated that this conduct was violative of Rule 14 and 23 of Tamil Nadu Servant Conduct Rules. Though the original petitioner claimed that he had filed an appeal, it later transpired that the appeal filed by R.Palani and six others was dismissed by the District Sessions Judge in CA No,67/87. The applicant claimed that he was not punished by the Magistrate and he was unnecessarily implicated in the said case. But the records obtained by the respondents show that the original petitioner was part of burning of Constitution copy agitation against the imposition of Hindi as official language and the same was proved before the Trial court. He was awarded the punishment of imprisonment for two weeks under Section 143 IPC and another two weeks under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Therefore, there was no impediment for the respondents to impose a punishment under Rule 17(c)(1)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and appeal) Rules r/w Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution. The original petitioner initially claimed that he had nothing to do with the political party and he was wrongly implicated in the criminal case because of the name that he has and hence he should be exonerated.