Supreme Court of India
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus K. RAJARAM APPASAMY
- Decided
- 21 April 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 886 · 1997 INSC 418
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. W c have heard learned counsel fur the parties.
p. 886, margin E
These appeals by special leave arise from the Order dated May 14, 1996 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. Nos. 2354, 24T7 and 6373 of 1993. The admitted facts are that the respondent was working as a doctor. He proceeded on leave and made a representation on June 27, 1987 with regard to his posting. He did not report for duty for five years from May 1, 1982. A departmental enquiry came to be conducted against the respondent, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The competent authority removed him from service on the ground that the respondent was found to be un authorisedly absent from duty for five years. The Tribunal in is its impugned order set aside the order of his removal from service and directed to pay 50% of the back wages till the dale of filing of the original application and full back wages from the date of liling of the original applications till lhe date of reinstatement. This Court issued notice confined to the question of respondent's entitlement to back wages. It would be obvious that the respondent did not choose to join the duty for five years. There is nothing on the part of the State Government which prevented the respondent from attending to his duties. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is wholly wrong in its direction to the appellants to pay 50% of the back wages from the date of his absence till the date of filling of the original application and back wages thereafter till his reinstatement. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the direction to pay back wages stands set aside. No costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.
pp. 886–887, margin F