The judgment establishes that government servants are bound by conduct rules, fundamental duties, and laws, and violations of these can warrant disciplinary action, even without an enquiry.

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. The original petitioner sought for the issuance 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 212. 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.

4. The original petitioner, who was the husband, was dismissed from service by the fourth respondent, by an order, dated 296. The original petitioner filed an appeal, dated 23. 96 before the third respondent and that was dismissed by an order, dated 297. It is against these two orders, he filed the original application. The ground for dismissal against the original petitioner was that he was initially in unauthorised absence from work from 89. When an enquiry was pending against the said charge memo, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the original petitioner had participated in a political agitation conducted by the DMK political party and was kept in Cuddalore Central jail from 211. 1986 to 21. 1987. In that criminal case, the original petitioner was also convicted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram in CC case No.1529 of 86, dated 28. 87 and the original petitioner never informed about the said conviction.

5. 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.

6. In response to these allegations, in the reply affidavit, dated 27. 2000, in para 23, it was averred as follows:

"23.... it is submitted that it is ascertained that the Applicant in his petition dated 17. 89 to the Honourable Chief Ministers Special Cell, had stated among other things that he was a member of a political party since 1977 and he was a Secretary of that party in that locality that he had taken part in the picketing in support of Ceylon Tamils and Burning of Constitution Amendment Bill in 1987 and 1988 organized by that political party and that the Applicant was imprisoned."

7. The counsel for the original petitioner raised two contentions. The first contention was that the conviction was in the year 1987 and for that charge memo was given in 1991 i.e. after a period of four years and therefore, in view of the long delay in framing the charges, the charges must be quashed. He relied upon the following three decision:

(a) P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005 (4) CTC 403),

(b) R.Thirupathy and others Vs. The District Collector, Madurai D