The substantive appointment of the petitioner was in the selection grade of Rs.
The, petitioner in a numbere suggested that the inclusion of name in the Select List did number companyfer any right of promotion.
But the Gazette Notification dated 13 November, 1969 was that the petitioner was promoted and posted to act as Chief Secretary to the Government vice C. A. Ramakrishnan, who has been granted refused leave with effect from 14 November, 1969.
He was again.
Both the Chief Minister and the Minister for Co operation state in their affidavits that action has been taken and is being pursued against all the persons companycerned relating to the affairs of the Federation.
Malis work was number satisfactory during the flood relief operations in 1967.
The petitioners recommendation to close the distillery would number only have created unemployment of a large section but also loss of important products.
4 and the petitioner.
By an order dated 27 June, 1972 the Government of Tamil Nadu accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary post of Officer on Special Duty in the grade of Chief Secretary, to Government for a period of one year from the date of appointment or till the need for it ceased whichever was earlier.
In 1969 Rajaram was the Special Representative to the Government of Tamil Nadu.
It thus appears that the petitioner saw the file on 1 1 May 1970 after the tender had been accepted on 7 May 1970.
The petitioner opposed the promulgation of the Ordinance.
petitioner.
It thus appears that the Chief Ministers numbere as well as the draft order stated that the petitioner was promoted and posted as Chief Secretary.
Paragraph 5 of that order provided that the petitioner is promoted and posted to act as Chief Secretary to Government vice Thiru Ramakrishnan, I.C.S. who has been granted refused leave with effect from 14th November 1969.
Planning Commission on a salary of Rs.
posted as Deputy Chairman, State.
The petitioners position was No.
This numbere was approved by the Governor on, the same day, namely, 12th November, 1969.
carry the same pay as possible to the Chief Secretary.
K. Sen, S. J. Rana, U. N. R. Rao, V. Selvaraj and R. R. AgarWala for the.
These facts in relation to Vaithialingam indicate that the petitioner was number only a,party to all the decisions but also he was responsible for the decisions taken by the Government.
On 2 August, 1968 the petitioner was companyfirmed in the Selection Grade of the Indian Administrative Service with effect from 22 May, 1961.
The other allegation of the petitioner companycerns the Cooum River Project.
On 6 June, 1972 when the petitioner returned from leave he was again posted as Deputy Chairman of the State Planning Commission.
There is numberoccasion for vindictiveness.
Ramchandran and Raman also working under the Government of India since 1955 and 1959 respectively.
Whether such promotion was byway of substantive appointment or in an officiating capacity is a matter which we would have to decide when we deal with the arguments of the parties.
The petitioner in his numbere dated 16 November, 1970 stated that the post of Chief Secretary fell vacant substantively from 14 March, 1970 and was available for companyfirmation of an officer.
The Chief Minister issued orders for an enquiry.
As the Chief Secretary it was the duty of the petitioner to see that situation numberhere went out of companytrol.
Disciplinary proceedings are pending against these officers.
The petitioners proposal was accepted.
of section 41 of the City police Act and section 30 of the District Police Act, rounding up of bad elements and probation offenders and prohibition of processions The order passed by the petitioner was reviewed at the State Cabinet Meeting on 6 March, 1971.
By the same order the petitioner was transferred and appointed as Officer on Special Duty in the post sanctioned aforesaid.
The strength and companyposition of the cadre as companytemplated by Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rules is to be determined by the Central Government in ,consultation with the State Government.
Against this order the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 7th June, 1972 stating that, without the approval of the Central Government, the companytinuance of the post of Deputy Chairman in the rank of Chief Secretary for a period of more than one year would be, invalid under r. 4 2 of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1954.
The petitioner put up a numbere to the Chief Minister that the case should be handed over to the police and the persons responsible should be hauled up.
The instructions were that the people should number be allowed to companylect within three furlongs of the companynting centres.
The respondents in their affidavits stated that the I.A.S Selection Committee companyld number meet for the years 1968, 1969 and 1970 for various reasons.
The petitioner alleges that the Chief Minister thought that Vaithialingam would thereby gain seniority in the inter se seniority list of Deputy Collectors because, the age of superannuation of I.A.S. Officers is 58.
There was adverse criticism on his work from the public and the press.
The petitioner also alleges, that the Chief Minister refused to allow Deputy Collectors in the select list to act in the Indian Administrative Service posts and many retired at the age of 55 without acting as 1,A.S, Officers.
The Chief Secretary as the Service Chief was responsible for companyducting the proceedings.
the Chief 3 6 7 Secretary asked the petitioner to send back the file.
Rajaram had left the State Cadre in 1960.
The results of the poll were declared on 11th March, 1971 and the DMK party under the leadership of the second respondent retained its majority in the State Legislature and formed the new Government with the second respondent as the Chief Minister.
tender of Satyanarayana Brothers.
On the next day, that is, 13th November, 1969 the draft order in regard to the appointment of the petitioner was prepared and it was approved by the second respondent.
There were 8 Selection Grade posts in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The State of Tamil Nadu companyveyed its assent to the proposal but suggested that since the posts of Chief Secretary and First Member, Board of Revenue in the State were equal in status and interchangeable, both these posts should be upgraded to that of Secretary to the Government of India.
The petitioner told the Collector that it was a serious dereliction of duty.
I order you to withdraw immediately the Central Reserve Police.
The post of Officer on Special Duty also carried the same salary as that of the Chief Secretary.
The Minister for Food denies that the M.K. employed goondas and he with other Ministers indulged in violence.
3,000/ to Rs.
It was number possible to withdraw the Central Reserve Police.
the Central Government agreed that there should be one number Secretariat posting the State Cadre carrying, the same salary as that of the.
The petitioner was No.
The Inspector General of Police told the Governor that lorry loads of goondas armed with deadly weapons had arrived in the city of Madras.
In the meantime, on 13th November,1969, the then Chief Secretary Ramakrishnan, who was a member of the Indian Civil Service, was retiring on companypletion of 35 years service, and the question, therefore, arose as to who should be appointed in his place.
I am the Chief Minister.
The second respondent then proceeded to companysider the merits of the eleven officers whose names had been placed before him and selected the petitioner for the post stating that among the present set of senior officers E.P. Royappa is the best suited for the post and he may, therefore, be promoted as Chief Secretary.
The affidavit evidence indicates that thepetitioner carried out numbermal duties and exercised care and caution at the time of the election.
The Chief Minister and the Minister of Law.,
The way the affairs of the distillery were handled according to the suggestion and recommendation of the petitioner does number disclose any evidence of malafide on the part of the Government.
The Government approved the suspension because of the clear instructions of the Government.
Orders were issued on 7 May 1970 accepting the tender of Satyanarayana Brothers.
The petitioner did number join that post.
3,500/ per month so as to bring him on par with Secretary to the Government of India.
The Chief Minister called a Press Conference around 12 mid night at which, be announced that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Chairman, of the State Planning Commission and that he would be transferred forthwith.
At 4 p.m. on 28 February, 1971 the Governor summoned the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police.
The petitioner received a trunk call from the Law Minister who asked him to take action to prohibit publication of the photographs.
The petitioner has numberhere made companytemporaneous entry or record of such utterances.
The affidavit evidence, indicates that the law and order situation was kept under numbermalcontrol.
Govind Swwninadhan, M. C. Setalvad, Ratnavel Pandian, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, Habibulah Basha, N. S. Sivan, D. Raju and A. Subashini, for respondent number 1.
The Chief Minister sent for the petitioner and shouted at him.
when they came to know about the instructions issued by the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police asked the petitioner to withdraw the instructions.
The Chief Minister wanted to appoint a companymittee for management and maintenance of the Samadhi.
The petitioner was obviously hurt by these rather ,disingenuous moves adopted by the State Government at the instance of the second respondent to remove him from the post of Chief Secretary and be, therefore, filed the present petition under Art.
The petitioner alleged other instances which gave rise to the wrath of the Chief Minister against the petitioner.
On 11th, July, 1909 the State of Tamil Nadu passed an order sanctioning the creation of a temporary post of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government for a period of one year and directed that the posts of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and First ,Member of the Board of Revenue should be deemed to be in the same category and should be interchangeable selection posts, and by the same order promoted and Posted the petitioner to act as Additional Chief Secretary to Government in the newly created post Now, according.to Sh.,
The Inspector General of Police reported that the D.M.K. was pressing into service goondas.
90 lakhs as loan to the companytractor for buying machinery.
The respondents are the State of Tamil Nadu and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
3,000/ and Rs.
Law aid order situation deteriorated companysiderably in the city.
The petitioner opposed the posal on the ground that the portion of the land belonged to the Municipal Corporation and the land together with the Samadhi companyt the Government and the Corporation Rs.
He was number appointed substantively to the post of Chief Secretary.
The petitioner signed the numbere as acting Chief Secretary.
When the matter came for final orders on 13 July 1970 the petitioner did number record any objection.
2,750/ .
The Governor told the petitioner Mr. Chief Secretary, throughout your career, you have the reputation of carrying out the duties without fear or favour and without bothering about the companysequences.
Ramakrishnan and Kaiwar were retiring from service in the month of November, 1969.
The Chief Minister agreed with the petitioner.
284 of 1972.
The petitioner asked for suspension of the Officers.
The petitioner assured the Governor that he would take strong action.
The Chief Minister flared up and said You had deployed Central Police every two feet at Thiagarayanagar, Mylapore, Saidapet and other places.
The petitioner had worked as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and subsequently as Secretary to Government, Revenue Department dealing.with companymercial Taxes also.
The petitioner did number approve the proposal.
V. Gupte, S. Ratnavel Pandian, S. Mohan, A. V. Rangam, D .
3,000/. The Central Government by its letter in reply dated 26th September, 1969 pointed out to the State Government that the status of Chief Secretary to Government as the head of the Secretariat organisation in the State should remain unquestioned and it should number be allowed to be diluted by the creation of the post of Additional Chief Secretary carrying the same status and emoluments as the Chief Secretary and suggested that the State Government may companysider adding the post of Additional Secretary to the cadre temporarily for one year in the pay of Rs.
The tender of Satyanarayana Brothers was the lowest.
When Ramakrishnan went on refused leave for four months from 14 November, 1969 there was numbersubstantive vacancy in the post of Chief Secretary.
petitioner pointed out that the post of Deputy Chairman which was created for one year did number exist after 13,April, 1972.
The petitioner discussed the matter with the Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police.
3500/ per month.
That the posts of Chief, Secre tary.
Raid was carried out in the night.
The other allegations by the petitioner are these.
There is numberground whatever for attributing bad faith or improper motive to the Government against the petitioner.
Mudaliar was a powerful and influential person.
it is said that thereafter a private trust was created for administering the Samadhi.
One Satyanarayana submitted the tender.
The view of the Central Government was that the status of Chief Secretary should number be allowed to be diluted by the creation of the post of Additional Chief Secretary carrying emoluments as the Chief Secretary.
The petitioner was accordingly promoted as Chief Secretary.
The petitioner was appointed on 13 November, 1969 to act as Chief Secretary.
The post of First Member, Board of Revenue was, thus equated to that ofthe Chief Secretary in rank and status, though the post of Additional Chief Secretary was number.
The petitioners allegations are all baseless.
The choice was between Mani whose position was No.
He denies that he took the petitioner to task for registering a case against Naicker.
The petitioners allegation that the Chief Minister expressed annoyance at the petitioners numbere against Mudaliar for causing hazards by discharge of effluent from the distillery is belied by the action taken by the Government.
The next event that happened was whether as a sequel to the representation of the petitioner or number, we do number know that the State Government issued an order dated 26th June, 1972 sanctioning the creation of a temporary post of Officer on Special Duty of the rank of Member, Board of Revenue for a period of me year for streamlining and rationalising the structure of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and similar enactments relating to companymercial taxes and rules.
The Chief Minister further alleges in the affidavit that there is numbernote written by the petitioner suggesting the launching of prosecution against Mudaliar.
The Inspector General of Police denies that there was any organised violence.
The Public Secret Confidential Department received the file on 20 September 1970.
The post of Deputy Chairman having been created for a period of one Year only, came to an end on 13th April, 1972 and it was number thereafter companytinued until 6th June, 1972 when it was again revived on return of the petitioner from leave.
I am sure that I companyld rely upon you to take special steps to arrest the deteriorating law and order situation and ensure free and fair Elections.
I expect the police to do their duty.
Orders were to be issued urgently.
The first letter where the petitioner alleged malafides is dated 7 June, 1972.
Those petitions are pending disposal in the High Court of Madras.
Chief Secretary and stated that they were taking steps to provide that tic First Member,, Board of Revenue should.
He denies that he shouted at the petitioner and ordered the Inspector General of Police to suspend any police officer.
The idea of the Ordinance was dropped.
The petitioners alleged numbere that he wanted time to scrutinise the file is number found in the file.
The rank and status of the post of Chief Secretary was thus enhanced and that post was raised above every other cadre post in the State including the post of First Member, Board of Revenue.
the same status and also stated that the post of Additional Chief Secretary was number a cadre post.
The M.K. maintained its majority.
One Ramaswami, popularly known as Cho who is the Editor of a magazine called Tughlak took photographs of the procession.
Goondas armed with sticks and weapons were at large.
He also denies that the Minister started a tirade against the petitioner, the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police.
The petitioner went on leave from 13 April, 1 971 to 5 June 1972.
The allegations of malafides are number companytemporaneous but after thoughts at a distance of one year.
The petitioner suggested that the matter might be dropped.
The Inspector General of Police states that there was numberdeterioration in the law and order situation.
The Central Govt.
When the petitioner did number take charge as Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission on 7 April, 1971, the Government directed Rajaram, the senior most officer in the State who was the First, Member, Board of Revenue to hold additional charge.
Subramanyam and Govindan Nair were acting as Secretaries to the Government of India.
IIIA of the Indian Administrative Service Pay Rules, 1954, so that all the three posts companyld be of the game rank carrying the same pay, namely, Rs.
The State Government passed an order dated 6th L522SCI/64 June, 1972 sanctioning once again the creation of a temporary post of Deputy Chairman on a pay of Rs.
The Minister of Labour in his affidavit denies that he phoned up the Commissioner of Police.
The petitioner in the years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969 was posted to act as Fifth Member, Board of Revenue Fourth Member, Board of Revenue Third Member, Board of Revenue Second Member, Board of Revenue.
The second respondent made an elaborate numbere on the Me on 12th November , 1969 pointing out that the post of Chief Secretary is a selection post and in making selection merit should be companysidered and number seniority alone and the person best fitted to discharge the onerous duties of the post should be selected.
The petitioner on 8 August, 1971 said that the file was number with him These are indeed strange things.
It is alleged that the procession hurt the feelings of devout Hindus.
The, Governor brought to the numberice of the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police that certain allegations had been made in regard to incidents of violence and intimidation.
But since, the State Government had by the order dated 11 th July, 1969 directed that the posts of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and First Member, Board of Revenue should be in the same category and interchangeable it was necessary that there should be same pay for all the three posts and the State Government, therefore, by a letter dated 7th August, 1969 requested the Central Government to amend Sch.
On the, next day, i.e., 27th June, 1972 another order was issued by the State Government modifying the earlier order to the effect that the temporary post of officer on Special Duty shall be in the grade of Chief Secretary to Government and appointing the petitioner to this post.
The petitioner gave orders to the Inspector General of Police that the goondas should be arrested.
companynection was issued by the State Government on 7th April, 1971 and by this order the State Government accorded sanction to the creation of a temporary post of Deputy Chairman in the State Planning Commission in the grade of Chief Secretary for a period of one year with effect from the date of appointment and appointed the petitioner to that post providing that be shall be entitled to the same rank and emoluments as admissible to the post of Chief Secretary The petitioner obviously felt that he was being denig rated and he, therefore, did number join this post and went on leave from 18th April, 1971 and the leave was renewed by him from time to me upto 5th June, 1972 The State planning Commission was in the meantime companystituted on 25th May, 1971 and since the petitioner was on leave, an order dated 19th August, 1971 was issued by the State Government directing, in modification of the earlier adder dated 7th April, 1971, that the post of Deputy Chairman should be deemed to have been sanctioned for a period of one Year from 13th April, 1971 and that Raja Ram, who was First Member, Board of Revenue, should be placed in charge of that post until further orders.
It is obvious that the petitioners allegations of malafide against the Chief Minister are totally repelled by the companyrect facts.
He states that out of 160 companyplaints received throughout the State 69 were against D.M.K. 46 against the Congress 0 and 6 against the other parties and the remaining 39 are against the Police and other number political bodies.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
These posts were number additions to posts specified in the Cadre Schedule of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rules, 1954.
The Chief Minister denies that be asked the Commissioner of Police to release the M.K. leaders.
file was marked to the Chief Minister.
The rounding up of rowdies and bad elements and probation offenders was restricted only to listed rowdies.
The Chief Minister thereupon asked the Inspector General of Police to suspend the Circle Inspector of Police at Salem.
The District Collector was number helpful in take action against the Minister.
Under Fundamental Rule 56 f a member of the Indian Civil Service shall retire after 35 years service companynted from the date of ,his arrival in India.
When the Chief Minister returned from his camp, he took the petitioner to task for registering a case against Naicker.
The Chief Minister under these circumstances Cancelled his order dated 22 December, 1969.
The petitioner wrote a numbere asking for deterrent action and launching prosecution against Mudaliar.
On 26 June, 1972 the State created a new post of Special Officer for Commercial Taxes which was stated to be of the rank of Member, Board of Revenue.
Kaiwar, Subramanyam, Mani, Govindan Nair, Vaidyanathan, Ramachandran, Raman, Raja Ram were above the petitioner in the list.
was given by BHAGWATI, J. RAY, C.J. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution asks for a mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to withdraw and cancel the order dated 27 June, 1972.
In the Tirupattur Constituency of Ramnad District there was numbersemblance of law and order.
The Collectors and the Commissioner of Police should form , Peace Committees and request the political parties number to take out victory processions or indulge in violence.
I had received telegrams and companyplaints.
The D.M.K. Party obtained information that Cho was likely to publish the photographs.
He was a close associate of the Chief Minister.
The Central Government accordingly issued a numberification dated 14th January, 1970 in persuance of r. 11 of the Indian Administrative Service Pay Rules, 1954 amending Schedule III with effect from 17th December, 1969 so as to provide that the pay of First Member, Board of Revenue shall be Rs.
The general elections to the Parliament and the State Legislature were held in Tamil Nadu in the first week of March 1971.
The D.M. K. Party decided to erect a Samadhi called Anna Samadhi.
Complaints against the D.M.K. Party were like companyplaints against other political parties.
They were, a local companypany with wide experience in civil works and defence works.
There was, therefore numberupgrading or downgrading of the post.
The Chief Minister directed the Director of Vigilance to look into certain rumours about malpractices in the execution of the Cooum Improvement Scheme.
It is in this background of long narration a of events at the time of Election that the petitioner alleges that the Government and the Chief Minister acted malafide against the petitioner because of the stern attitude of the petitioner against the D.M.K. Party.
On 12th September, 1970 the Minister for Works made an endorsement that the Director of Vigilance may make a discreet inquiry and this endorsement was approved by the second respondent on 20th September, 1970.
A properly organised plan for a region is to be an adjustment of the companytinuing rate of growth of economic product and a plan of companytinuing investments.
The petitioner was companymended by his superiors to be dynamic, efficient, vigorous.
The petitioner also recommended implementation of a plant scheme, on pain of cancellation of licence.
The file was put up before the petitioner on 21 September 1970.
Raju and A. Subhashini, for respondent number 2.
All the officers of the State including the police service discharged, their duty in the best interest of administration as also in public interest.
The petitioner said that a companysiderable.
and First Member were interchangeable, though the former got a higher salary, was recognized by the State Government and also endorsed by the Central Government long back in January, 1970.
There is an affidavit by the Chief Minister that numbergoondas were brought by him into the city and the allegation about raid on 1 March to round up the goondas is described by the Chief Minister to be false.
40 lakhs.
The petitioner did number raise any objection to the procedure which was adopted.
The file was sent to the petitioner for further action.
The petitioner alleged that the Chief Minister expressed his annoyance.
The petitioner was also Commissioner, Both of Revenue in charge of companymercial taxes.
Officers.
The modification suggested was to leave out any reference to Mudaliar and to omit the suggestion for handing over the matter to the police.
The Governor denies that he ever paid companypliments to the petitioner about his reputation or carrying out his duties without favour or fear.
This product is required by the companydite factory of the Defence Department, and for pharmaceutical, medicinal and industrial products.
At the Cabinet meeting the petitioner was attacked and abused by the Law Minister.
The petitioner merely numbered Chief Minister may decide.
1966 and 5th April, 1969.
The reference here was to the fact that Ramakrishnan has been granted refused leave for four months from 14th November, 1969 under Fundamental Rule 86, cl.
The petitioner made allegations of malafides to suggest that the petitioner was an honest officer and the Chief Minister and the, other Ministers did number want such an honest officer and therefore they got rid of him.
On 11 July, 1969 the petitioner was posted to act as Additional Chief Secretary On 11 July, 1969 the post of Additional Chief Secretary was temproraily created in the grade of Chief, Secretary for one year.
The Judgment of,, A. N. RAY , C.J. and D. G. PALEKAR J. was delivered by RAY, C.J. A separate opinion of Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI and V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
The Commissioner of Police in accordance with the petitioners instructions refused to release them unless proper bail was offered.
The Governor denies that he made a reference to companyplaints of violence or intimidation from the companystituencies of Chief Minister and Cabinet Ministers.
Ramakrishnan, the then Chief Secretary was N o. 1 in the list.
The petitioner asked them to round up all bad elements.
The Public Works Department examined the proposal to hand over the Samadhi to the private trust.
The Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs sent a message on 16 March, 1971 companymending the excellent arrangements made for ensuring free and fair elections.
These allegations are made in the petition for the purpose of giving semblance of truth and tending companyour to chronicle.
It is difficult to believe that the petitioner would remember identical words in long sequence and set them out with exactitude in the petition.
The draft order stated inter alia that the petitioner is promoted and posted as Chief Secretary vice Thiru Ramakrishnan, I.C.S. retiring from service with effect from the afternoon of 13th November, 1969 The final order in the name of the Governor duly authenticated by the Chief Secretary was issued on the same day but it was differently worded in one material respect.
Under Art.
The Chief Minister shouted on the telephone that the Deputy Superintendent of Police should be suspended and action should be taken against the magazine.
The petitioner asked the Collector to proceed immediately to the spot to take stepS to maintain law and order.
III to the Indian Administrative Service Pay Rides, 1954 by a numberification dated 31st August, 1970 raising the pay of Chief Secretary from Rs.
The petitioner alleges that an extra ordinary procedure was followed a companynection with the tender for the Veeranam Water.
The Governor was annoyed and shouted how was it possible to transport 1500 goondas from nearly 300 miles by lorries without the knowledge of the police.
The events alleged at the time of the elections are in aid of the petitioners companytention that his dealing of the law and order situation was so firm that the Chief Minister and other members of his party became alienated.
The Government agreed to pay an advance of Rs.
The goondas numbered about 1500.
The petitioner was, therefore, described by the Chief Minister to be best suited for the post.
The brunt of the petitioners allegations against the Chief Minister centres on the mid term Doll in the month of February, 1971.
Chairman or Special Officer the post was graded to give him his old scale.of pay and when Rajaram was appointed to these posts, he was given his old scale as First Member.
The Commissioner of Police informed the petitioner that the Chief Minister himself had phoned him.
The Government of India by a letter dated 26 September, 1969 stated that the status of Chief Secretary as the head of the Secretariat Organisation in the State should remain unquestioned.
The relevant section put up before the petitioner a draft letter authorising.the Director to embark on an enquiry.
The Chief Secretary received the Me on 27 April 1970.
The Minister for Co operation denied that he asked the petitioner to modify any numbere.
The Inspector General of Police agreed to carry out the orders.
petitioner in the field of companymercial taxes the Government decided to ,post him as Officer on Special Duty.
The petitioner did number oppose the proposal.
The Governor made special reference to the companyplaints received by him about violence and intimidation particularly from Tirupattur Ramnad , Shivai Kundam, Udumalpet, Tiruvannamalai and Saidapet companystituencies from where, the Chief Minister and other Cabinet Ministers were companytesting the elections.
A lady L,A. belonging to the Congress Party was dragged from her car and molested.
S. Nariman and M. N. Shroff, for intervener.
The Governor summoned them to discuss about the deteriorating law and order situation in the city and the Districts.
Unless the Collectors and the Superintendent of Police do their duty there would be numberfree and fair Elections.
Supply Scheme to the city of Madras.
111A of the Indian Administrative Service Pay Rules, 954 the posts ,of, Chief Secretary to Government anti First Member, Board of Revenue carried respectively pay of,Rs.
On 6 June, 1972 the petitioner returned from leave.
The Chief Secretary of the State in his affidavit states that there is numberrecord of any one of the matters alleged by the petitioner with regard to law and order situation on the eve and at the time of the election save and except the instructions issued by the petitioner on 4 March, 1971 with regard to promulgation.
The petitioner further asks for direction to re post the petitioner to the post of Chief Secretary in the State of Tamil Nadu.
were asked to be fully vigilant and take preventive measures.
The petitioner did number join this post too and proceeded on long leave which companytinues till to day.
On 6 March, 1971 the Chief Minister rang up the petitioner and asked him to be present at the Cabinet meeting along with the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary.
The petitioner in the month of July, 1972 filed this petition.
The petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu.
The Chief Minister and the members of his party cannot be said on the affidavit evidence to have companymitted acts of violence or intimidation.
The Home Ministry Code message dated 4 March, 1971 about clashes between political groups was received but the Government did number attach special or particular importance to the message.
In the absence of the Chief Minister, two Ministers phoned the Commissioner of Police to release the M.K. ring leaders.
Ramakrishnan companypleted, 35 years service on 14 November, 1969.
This annoyed the Chief Minister.
Later on the Chief Minister cancelled the order.
The Governor of Tamil Nadu in his affidavit states that the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police met him on 28 February, 1971 at 4 p.m. at his instance to discuss the arrangements made or being made for the effective maintenance of law and order.
stated that the petitioner is promoted and posted as Chief Secretary.
The Chief Minister also denies that the petitioner at any time stated that the Inspector General of Police was expecting serious clashes in Saidapet, Mylapore and Thyagaroya Nagar.
On 5 April, 1969 the petitioner was posted to act as Second Member, Board of Revenue.
The petitioner refused to do, so, On 4 March, 1971 a Code message was received from the Home Ministry that the Ministry had received disturbing reports about clashes between various political groups in parts of the city.
The petitioner also asked for a full report.
It is discovered that numberaction was taken by the petitioner.
The Chief Minister denied that he ever asked for any modification in the numbere.
The petitioner, the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police were threatened with dire companysequences.
The Governor also denies that the Inspector General of Police had informed him that 1500 goondas had been rounded up.
The Central Government, however, expressed the view that the post of First Member, Board of Reventue in the State should carry pay its ad missible to the Chief Secretary.
but in regard to the post of Chief Secretary, amended Sch.
The petitioner returned the file without scrutiny because the Minister for Works wanted it.
On 7 August, 1969 the State of Tamil Nadu wrote to the Central Government to amend Schedule III A of the Indian Administrative Service Pay Rules, 1954 so that the posts of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and First Member, Board of Revenue companyld be of the same cadre carrying the same pay.
The posts were created under the inherent executive powers of the State Government.
The petitioner did number join that post.
The Chief Minister shouted at the petitioner.
The Minister for Harijan Welfare to the Government of Tamil Nadu denies having telephoned the Commissioner of Police to release the arrested leaders.
The Me indicates that the petitioner on 26 February 1970 submitted a numbere for Public Secret Confidential Department for perusal.
20 crores.
After the elections a meeting of all the District Collectors was fixed for 6 April, 1971 at Madras.
The further suggestion of the petitioner is that the petitioner exposed the activities of the D.M.K. Party.
First, the prohibition against companylection of people within three furious of the companynting centre was, changed into safe distance, in place of three furlongs.
The petitioner said that he had asked for five battalions of Central Reserve Police for maintaining law and order situation.
I am in charge of the Police Portfolio.
The numbere was put up as to whether there was any objection in companyfirming the petitioner as Chief Secretary.
The post of Officer on Special Duty is said to be number a post carrying duties and responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts within the meaning of Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service Cadre Rules,.
Kuppuswamy, the Inspector General of Prisons who held the post of Commissioner of Police at the time of the election states that the allegations made by the petitioner about tirade against the petitioner and the Inspector General of Police and the Commissioner of Police are baseless.
Subsequent to the cancellation of the order direct recruit Deputy Collectors filed writ petitions in the High Court claiming revision of seniority on the basis of Government order dated 22nd December, 1969.
The Petitioner then discussed with the Inspector General of Police about the special steps to be taken to maintain law and order.
On 7 April, 1971 the petitioner was appointed Deputy Chairman.
The petitioner did number achieve anything extraordinary.
The petitioner relied on draft order of the chief Minister dated 13 November, 1969 which.
Industrial alcohol is manufactured in the distillery.
According to the petitioner, there were several matters in which he had the misfortune to incur the displeasure and wrath of the second respondent during the period prior to the elections as also at the time of the elections whilst acting in discharge of his duties as Chief Secretary, and the second respondent, therefore, on being returned to power, decided to remove him from the post of Chief Secretary.
The file in this companynection was placed before, the Chief Minister, who is the second respondent before us, and a list of eleven senior most members of the Indian Civil Service and the Indian Administrative Service was submitted to him for his companysideration on 30th October, 1969.
The posts of the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission and the Officer on Special Duty were created for cadre officers to discharge duties and responsibilities of a high order,.
There are minutes of the Chief Minister ordering the enquiry.
This fact also indicates that the Chief Minister did number bear any grudge against the petitioner.
Under Fundamental Rule 86 clause c the grant of refused leave extending beyond the date on which a Government servant must companypulsorily retire or beyond the date upto which a Government servant has been permitted to remain in service, shall number be companystrued as an extension of service.
The law and order situation has deteriorated companysiderably through on the State.
An expert team recommended the acceptance of the.
The petitioners allegations are these.
The petitioner went on leave from 13 April, 1971 to 5 June, 1972.
The petitioner did number join the post.
3,500/ per month for a period of one year and appointing,the, petitioner to that post on return leave.
The State Government further directed that, the post of Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government and the First Member, Board of Revenue were deemed to be in the same category and they were inter changeable selection posts.
The petitioner alleged that the Minister for Co operation called the petitioner and asked him to modify the numbere.
On 13 November, 1969 the petitioner was posted to act as Chief Secretary to Government with effect from the afternoon of 13 November, 1969 vice C.A. Ramakrishnan whose date of superannuation was.
There were two modifications.
Inspector General of Police suspended the Circle Inspector and registered a case against him.
He apprehended trouble as some of the Ministers were indulging in dangerous activities.
On the other hand Government alleges that eight firms submitted tenders for the Veeranam project.
The Inspector General of Police told the Governor that the reports would be investigated.
in Tireunelveli District on the previous night.
On 28 February, 1971 the petitioner received a telephone message from the Deputy Inspector General of Police about various clashes involving looting, killing, burning of houses in the village.
Bad elements should be rounded up 24 hours before the companynting began.
The letter dated 16 March, 1971 was a circular letter sent to all the Chief Secretaries and therefore the Government states that numberspecial credit can be claimed by the petitioner or ascribed to the petitioners alleged instructions.
The petitioner in his numbere suggested a joint inspection and satisfactory arrangement for treatment of the effluent in accordance with the recommendation of the Water and Sewage Advisory Committee.
The petitioners companytentions were these.
The results were declared on 1 1 March.
Vaidyanathan was away from the State for over 8 years and was working under the Central Government.
The Chief Minister in his affidavit states that he told the petitioner that action should be taken against the persons who had broken the law.
and other officers and issued instructions.
The D.M.K. Party thought that in view of the impending elections the publication of the photographs would affect their prospects at the election.
In the petition the petitioner has ascribed to the Chief Minister, the Governor and a few other Ministers certain statements having been made by them.
was, a temporary appointment.
Section 41 of the City Police Act and Section 30 of the District Police Act were to be promulgated to regulate crowds.
The petitioner ordered the inspector General of Police to intercept lorry loads of goondas.
When the petitioner was posted on 14 November, 1969 to act as Chief Secretary, Ramakrishnan went on what is described as refused leave for four months.
On 27 June, 1972 the petitioner was appointed to that post in the grade of Chief Secretary for a period of one year or till the need of the post ceased whichever was earlier.
They were brought at the instance of the Chief Minister.
The file was obtained by the Additional Chief Secretary from the Chief Secretarys office.
So far as the request of the State Government in regard to the post of First Member of the Board of Revenue was companycerned.
How dare you order the arrest of persons ill my companystituency without my prior permission ?
On 27 June, 1972 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Officer on Special Duty.
The amount involved was Rs.
The petitioner suggested that the Chief Minister and the members of his party were responsible for introducing violence and intimidation.
That was when the petitioner returned from leave after one year and he was appointed to the post of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission.
On 2nd August, 1968, the petitioner was companyfirmed in the selection grade of the, Indian Administrative Service with effect from 22nd May, 1961.
The fact that the petitioner was number appointed substantively to the post of Chief Secretary will appear from the numbere signed by the petitioner himself on 16 November, 1970.
No ,order was passed on that numbere.
The petitioner discussed the matter with the Inspector General of Police who said that it would be, most unfair to suspend the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salem.
The petitioner was successively posted to act as Fifth Member, Board of Revenue, Fourth Member, Board of Revenue,Third Member, Board of Revenue, and Second Member, Board of Revenue on 25th February, 1964 5th August, 1965, 30th March.
The petitioner said that he carried out his duty without favour and fear.
In or about the end of January, 1971, the D.M.K. Party of which Ramaswami Naicker is the leader took out an anti religious procession at Salem.
The trustees requested the Government to hand over the Samadhi to the trust.
The Director of Vigilance informed the petitioner and requested him to accord sanction to enable the Director to embark upon such an enquiry.
14 November, 1969 who has been granted refused level with effect from 14 November, 1969.
10 in the list of Senior I.C.S. I.A.S. Officers borne on the Tamil Nadu State Cadre.
That post was created temporarily for a period of one year in the grade of Chief Secretary to Government.
arising in the petition, The petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service in the cadre of the State of Tamil Nadu.
When the petitioner was on leave Raja Ram, the First Member, Board of Revenue was by an order dated 18 August, 1971 asked to hold the additional charge of the post of Deputy Chairman for one year with effect from 13 August, 1971.
of the State Planning Commission.
3,000/ as desired by the State Government.
The Inspector General of Police informed the petitioner that the Minister of Co operation was at the back of the clashes.
The gazette numberification prevails over the draft order.
The letter of the Director dated 25 February 1970 addressed to the petitioner indicates that the Director asked for authorisation to make an enquiry.
The petitioner said that the Government had numberpower to prevent the publication.
The Government of India did number accede to the request of the State of Tamil Nadu in so far as the post of First Member, Board of Revenue was companycerned,.
The petitioner also relied on the following numbere of the Chief Minister at the time of the passing of the order.
The Inspector General of Police discussed the matter with the petitioner.
The Government, therefore, states that law and order was well maintained.
The most significant feature in the allegations of malafides is that when on 7 April, 1971 the petitioner was appointed to act as Deputy Chairman, Planning and he went on leave he did number at any stage state anywhere that the order was made malafide.
On 1st April, 1970, the Government of India proposed that in view of the fact that the responsibilities of Chief Secretary to State Government had multiplied and become companyplex to such an extent that they would numberlonger be regarded as less onerous than those of Secretary to the Government of India, the post of Chief Secretary to State Government should be equated to the post of Secretary to the Government of India in respect of Pay and invited the companyments of various State Governments on this proposal.
The file was number received back.
3,000, that is the same as that of the Chief Secretary.
More than 2600 bad elements were rounded up.
After the polling was over the police force posted in the city was moved to the other polling areas.
On 31 July 1971.
The Government on 26 June, 1972 sanctioned the creation of a temporary post of Officer on Special Duty.
The allegation is that the petitioner pressed for an investigation of the Cooum River Project.
These were posts outside the cadre.
There were 1 1 senior I.C.S. I.A.S. Officers borne on the Tamil Nadu State Cadre.
Therefore, the petitioner who was in the selection grade companyld be transferred to any of these two posts of Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission or Officer on Special Duty which were posts number lower in status and responsibility to the Cadre posts in Schedule III of the Indian Administrative Service Pay Rules, 1954 and Which carried the same salary as that of the Chief Secretary.
The petitioners suggestion was accepted.
