SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 748

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
N.Veerasamy - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, rep.by Secretary to Govt.& Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.32457 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.39320 of 2004
Decided On : 27 April 2005

Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant:R. Viduthalai, S.C. for A.V. Bharathi. For The Respondents:R1 & R2, V.T. Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor General for J. Ravindran, ACGSC R3 & R4, P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate Assisted by A.L. Somayaji, Addl. Advocate General for K. Mahendran, Spl. G.P.

Filing of PIL for initiating disciplinary action against Chief Secretary may be termed as abuse of the process of court.

Headnote:Constitution of India, (1950), Arts.131 and 226 -PIL---State Govt filed suit in Supreme Court against leader of a political party-Said plaint signed by Chief Secretary-PIL filed seeking direction to Central and State Courts to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Chief Secretary-Held, petition not maintainable being abuse of the process of court.

Judgment :-

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

N. Veerasamy, the Treasurer of the political party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has filed this Pro bono Publico seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Central Government, the respondents 1 and 2 and the State Government, the respondents 3 and 4 to take action against Mrs .Lakshmi Pranesh, the fifth respondent herein under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 for having violated the provisions of Rules 3,7 and 9 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968.

2. According to the petitioner, he has been a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for the past 28 years. He was a former State Cabinet Minister for two periods and has got a political career spanning over 3 decades by dedicating himself to the welfare and well being of the people of Tamil Nadu.

3. The Central Government was formed in May 2004 by Democratic Progressive Alliance led by Indian National Congress. On the assumption of power, the new Government took a decision to review the appointment of Governors made by the previous Government.

4. Opposing the move to transfer of the Governor of Tamil Nadu Mr. Ram Mohan Rao, the State of Tamil Nadu filed a suit in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India in O.S.No.5 of 2004 praying for declaration that the President/Union of India cannot transfer a Governor of the State except with the previous consent of the Chief Minister heading the Council of Ministers of the concerned State Government in which the said Governor is holding the office. The said suit was filed through Mrs. Lakshmi Pranesh, the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu.

5. In paragraph Nos.22 to 24 of the plaint, serious and baseless allegations were made with a view of damage the reputation of the President of D.M.K. party Dr. Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi. By making such false allegations, Mrs. Lakshmi Pranesh, I.A.S., the fifth respondent herein has violated the rules 3,7 and 9 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968. This is a conduct unbecoming of a member of All India Service.

6. The petitioner being the Treasurer of the party approached the Home Minister of India in New Delhi and pleaded for appropriate action against the fifth respondent who made false and baseless allegations against his leader, viz., Dr. Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi. As he advised the petitioner to seek legal redressal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate disciplinary action under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

7. Mr. R. Viduthalai, the learned senior counsel, while elaborating the various points raised in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner, would strenuously contend that as per Rule 7 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, there is a prohibition for the member of All India Service that he/she should not make any adverse criticism against the leaders of the political party by siding one Government, thereby embarrassing the inter se relationship between the Central Government and the State Government and despite the restriction imposed on the member of All India Service cadre by Rules 3,7 and 9, the fifth respondent has embolden to make false and personal allegations against the Leader of the D.M.K. Party who is the former Chief Minister and as such, there is a clear breach of the aforesaid Rules for which, the fifth respondent is liable for disciplinary action as per the provisions of All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.

8. On the strength of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in 2003(7) S.C.C.546 (GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE V. C.K.RAJAN) and 2003(6) S.C.C.581 (T.K.RANGARAJAN v. GOVT. OF T.N.), he would vehemently contend that the petitioner is entitled to approach this Court through public interest litigation in view of the extraordinary circumstances where the Chief Secretary has stooped to the level of making the a



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top