{"id":20407,"date":"2005-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005"},"modified":"2017-05-04T07:06:31","modified_gmt":"2017-05-04T01:36:31","slug":"parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 23\/11\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM         \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN        \n\nWrit Petition No.13361 of 2003\n\nParameswaran                           .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu\n   rep. by its Secretary to Government\n   Rural Development Department \n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai 9.\n\n2. The District Collector\n   Nellai Kattabomman District\n   (Now Tirunelveli District).\n\n3. The District Development Officer\n   Cheranmadevi \n   Nellai Kattabomman District\n   (Now Tirunelveli District).\n\n4. The Block Development Officer\n   Radhapuram \n   Nellai Kattabomman District\n   (Now Tirunelveli District).\n\n5. The Block Development Officer\n   Velliyoor\n   Nellai Kattabomman District\n   (Now Tirunelveli District).\n\n6. Tamil Nadu Administrative\n   Tribunal, rep. by its\n   Registrar, High Court Campus\n   Chennai 600 104.                             .. Respondents\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying  for  the  issuance  of  a  writ  of Certiorarified mandamus as stated\ntherein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.  K.  Premkumar\n                for Mr.  K.S.  Kumar\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.  E.  Sampathkumar \n                Government Advocate for R.1 to 5\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)<br \/>\n                Aggrieved by  the  order  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal,  Chennai  dated  04.07.2002 made in O.A.No.2420 1994, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas filed the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>                (a) The petitioner was  appointed  as  Rural  Welfare  Officer<br \/>\nGrade II on 01.08.1963 at Sengamangalam in Salem District.  Thereafter, he was<br \/>\ntransferred  and  posted  at Sathankulam Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District<br \/>\nand to Radhapuram Block Development Office.  On 11.06.1985, he was promoted as<br \/>\nAssistant and posted at Valliyoor Panchayat Union.  While  so,  on  12.03.1985<br \/>\nand  on  05.09.1985,  he  received  notices  from the Commissioner, Radhapuram<br \/>\nPanchayat Union, directing him to refund the advance  amount  of  Rs.13,000\/-.<br \/>\nThereafter,  on  29.09.1985,  he  was  placed under suspension by the District<br \/>\nCollector on the ground that an enquiry into  grave  charge  was  contemplated<br \/>\nagainst him.    On  16.10.1985,  he  submitted  a  representation  denying the<br \/>\nallegations leveled against him.  In spite of his detailed representation,  on<br \/>\n22.11.198  5,  the  District Development Officer, Cheranmadevi issued a charge<br \/>\nmemo by invoking Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (  Classification,<br \/>\nControl and Appeal) Rules, by framing three charges against him.  He submitted<br \/>\nan explanation  detailing  the  entire  facts.    Meantime, his suspension was<br \/>\nextended periodically and finally upto 30.09.1986 or  till  the  final  orders<br \/>\nwere passed in the Departmental proceedings initiated against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>                (b)  Pursuant  to the charge memo dated 22.11.1985, an enquiry<br \/>\nwas conducted by the Divisional Development Officer on  14.11.1986.    Without<br \/>\npassing  any  order  on the charge memo dated 22.11.1985, the third respondent<br \/>\nissued another charge memo dated 09.11.1987, framing the same charges as found<br \/>\nin the earlier charge memo dated 22.11.1985.  He also  submitted  explanations<br \/>\nfor  the  second charge memo on 08.06.1988 and 06.07.1988, denying the charges<br \/>\ncontained therein.  An enquiry was conducted with regard to second charge memo<br \/>\non 14.11.1986 and Enquiry Officer submitted his final  report  to  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent on  02.11.1988.    Since  the  petitioner  was not paid subsistence<br \/>\nallowance, he filed O.A.No.5002 of 1993 before the Tribunal for setting  aside<br \/>\nthe order of suspension dated 29.09.1985.  On 25.10.1993, direction was issued<br \/>\nby the Tribunal for payment of subsistence allowance as per Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>                (  c  )  While  so, the second respondent, District Collector,<br \/>\nTirunelveli District, issued a fresh charge memo  dated  05.02.1994,  leveling<br \/>\nthe  same  set  of  charges,  contained  in  the  earlier  charge  memos dated<br \/>\n22.11.1985  and  09.11.1987,  for  which,  he  submitted  his  explanation  on<br \/>\n01.03.1994,  requesting the second respondent to drop the charges, as the same<br \/>\nare belated and unwarranted.  Without considering  his  explanation,  a  fresh<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer was appointed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                (d)  Questioning  the  third charge memo, the petitioner filed<br \/>\nO.A.No.2420 of 1994 before the Tribunal.  The main  ground  taken  before  the<br \/>\nTribunal  was that the subsequent charge memo (third charge memo) for the same<br \/>\nset of facts  and  subject  matter  which  were  already  put  on  enquiry  by<br \/>\nappointing Enquiry Officers and the outcome of which enquiry was not disclosed<br \/>\nis bad in law and liable to be quashed.  He also challenged the charge memo on<br \/>\nthe ground of limitation.  The Government also passed order on 30.12.1994, not<br \/>\nallowing  him  to  retire from service on the date of his superannuation i.e.,<br \/>\n31.12.1994 on the ground  that  enquiry  against  grave  charges  of  criminal<br \/>\nmisconduct is  pending against him.  In the meantime, the criminal proceedings<br \/>\ninitiated against him in C.C.No.25 of 1995 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nValliyoor ended in acquittal  on  06.10.1997  and  the  said  order  was  also<br \/>\ncommunicated to  the  respondents.    In  view  of  the same, according to the<br \/>\npetitioner, there is no necessity  for  initiating  any  further  Departmental<br \/>\nproceedings and the third charge memo is unwarranted and liable to be dropped.<br \/>\nHowever,  the  Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 04.07.2002, dismissed his<br \/>\napplication and permitted the Department to proceed with the enquiry based  on<br \/>\nthe third  charge  memo.    Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed the<br \/>\nabove writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner  as  well  as<br \/>\nrespondents 1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The only point for consideration in this writ petition is,<br \/>\nwhether  the  second  respondent is justified in issuing the third charge memo<br \/>\ndated 05.02.1994, on the same set  of  allegations,  which  were  the  subject<br \/>\nmatter of two earlier charge memos and the Tribunal is justified in dismissing<br \/>\nthe application of the petitioner praying to quash the same?\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   In  order  to answer the above questions, it is useful to<br \/>\nrefer the charges contained in the first charge memo dated 22.11.1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Charge No.1:  That he has failed to utilise the advance amount of Rs.26,000\/-<br \/>\npaid to him for execution of works noted in para I above in time  and  thereby<br \/>\nhe  is  responsible  for  the non-adjustment of advance and for the retention,<br \/>\nmisusing of Government money at his own accord without utilising the money for<br \/>\nwhich it has been paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>Charge No.2:  That he has failed to complete the work entrusted to him in time<br \/>\nby utilising the advance  paid  to  him  and  thereby  he  has  neglected  the<br \/>\nGovernment  instructions  in the execution of work under NREP\/RLEGP and create<br \/>\nPublic criticism in administering the Government scheme.<br \/>\nCharge No.3:  That he has failed to discharge his legitimate duties  entrusted<br \/>\nto him.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>For the above said charges, the petitioner has submitted his explanation dated<br \/>\n30.01.1986, denying  all  the  allegations  made against him.  For the reasons<br \/>\nbest known to the District Development Officer, Cheranmadevi, who  issued  the<br \/>\nsaid charge memo, no further action was taken by conducting any enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   Now,  let us refer the charges found in the second charge<br \/>\nmemo dated 09.11.1987, issued  by  the  very  same  Officer,  which  reads  as<br \/>\nfollows.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Charge No.1:    That  he  has  failed to utilise the advance amount, Rice and<br \/>\nCement to a tune of Rs.61,293\/- as noted above in para (1) for  the  execution<br \/>\nof  the  above  said  two  works  and  to complete the works and thereby he is<br \/>\nresponsible for the non adjustment of advance and for the  retention  misusing<br \/>\nof Government money at his own accord without utilising the money for which it<br \/>\nhas been paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>Charge No.2:    That  he  has  failed to complete the work entrusted to him by<br \/>\nutilising the advance paid to him and thereby he has neglected the  Government<br \/>\ninstructions  in  the  execution  of  works under NREP\/RLEGP and create public<br \/>\ncriticism in administering the Government Scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>Charge No.3:  That he has failed to discharge his legitimate duties  entrusted<br \/>\nto him as referred to para (1) and (2) above.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Here  again,  the  petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.11.1987, wherein<br \/>\nalso he denied the allegations.  He sent a further explanation on  08.06.1988.<br \/>\nAdmittedly,  no  further  action  was taken pursuant to the same by conducting<br \/>\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Now, let us see the third charge  memo  dated  05.02.1994,<br \/>\nissued by  the  District  Collector,  Tirunelveli  Kattabomman  District.  The<br \/>\ncharges leveled therein are as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Charge No.1:  That he has failed to utilise  the  advance  amount,  Rice  and<br \/>\nCement  to a tune of Rs.61,293\/- as noted above in para 1 for the execution of<br \/>\nthe works entrusted to him under  NREP\/RLEGP  at  Radhapuram  Panchayat  Union<br \/>\nduring 84-85.\n<\/p>\n<p>Charge No.2:   That he has failed to complete the above works by utilising the<br \/>\nadvanced paid to him.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>For the said charges, the petitioner has  submitted  his  explanation  to  the<br \/>\nCollector on  01.03.1994.    He has not only questioned the charges on merits,<br \/>\nbut also highlighted that the said charge memo  cannot  be  sustained  on  the<br \/>\nground of delay.        Questioning  the third charge memo, the petitioner has<br \/>\napproached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal  by  filing  O.A.No.2420  of<br \/>\n1994.   In the m eanwhile, the criminal case filed against him in C.C.No.25 of<br \/>\n1995 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, ended  in  acquittal.    A<br \/>\nperusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, which is available at pages 87<br \/>\nto 95 of the typedset of papers shows it is an honorable acquittal on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   The above details amply show that there is no explanation<br \/>\nat all for not  pursuing  the  first  and  second  charge  memos  or  for  not<br \/>\nconsidering   the  explanations  offered  by  the  petitioner  for  the  same.<br \/>\nLikewise, there is no reply for not  pursuing  the  third  charge  memo,  when<br \/>\nadmittedly  no order of stay was passed by the Tribunal in OA.No.2420 of 1994.<br \/>\nIn other words, though the said application had been filed before the Tribunal<br \/>\nin 1994 and the same wa s disposed of on 04.07.200 2, admittedly, there was no<br \/>\norder barring the Department from proceeding  with  the  charge  memo.    Even<br \/>\nbefore  us, there is no answer for not pursuing the charge memo and completing<br \/>\nthe enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In this regard, it is useful to refer the latest  judgment<br \/>\nof the Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of <a href=\"\/doc\/1100953\/\">P.V.  Mahadevan vs.  M.D., Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nHousing Board<\/a> reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403.   In  that  case,  in  respect  of<br \/>\ncertain commissions and omissions in 1990, which were pointed out in the Audit<br \/>\nReport in  1994-94,  a  charge  memo came to be issued in 2000 .  Pointing out<br \/>\nthat the reason for delay was unacceptable and finding that  the  disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings  was  prejudicial  to public interest and the interest of employee<br \/>\nand taking note of the fact that the employee reached superannuation, and also<br \/>\nconsidering that the mental  agony  and  suffering  of  the  employee  due  to<br \/>\nprotracted  disciplinary  proceedings, was more than punishment to be awarded,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court quashed the charge memo and  permitted  the  employee  to  draw<br \/>\nretrial benefits.    The  following  observations  made in para 14 of the said<br \/>\njudgment are relevant.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;14.  Under these circumstances, we are  of  the  opinion  that  allowing  the<br \/>\nrespondent  to  proceed  further  with  the  departmental  proceedings at this<br \/>\ndistance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant.  Keeping a  higher<br \/>\nGovernment  official  under  charges of corruption and dispute integrity would<br \/>\ncause unbearable mental agony and distress to  the  officer  concerned.    The<br \/>\nprotracted   disciplinary   enquiry  against  a  government  employee  should,<br \/>\ntherefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but<br \/>\nin public interest and also in the interests of inspiring  confidence  in  the<br \/>\nminds of the government employees.  At this stage, it is necessary to draw the<br \/>\ncurtain and  to put an end to the enquiry.  The appellant had already suffered<br \/>\nenough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings.  As  a  matter  of<br \/>\nfact,  the  mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings would be much more than  the  punishment.    For  the<br \/>\nmistakes  committed  by  the  department  in  the procedure for initiating the<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  In the case before us, the alleged failure to utilise the<br \/>\nadvance amount and failure to complete the work entrusted to him by  utilising<br \/>\nthe funds had taken place prior to 1985.  It is not a case of misappropriation<br \/>\nor retention  of  Government money.  On the other hand, the allegation relates<br \/>\nto negligence in monitoring the projects and non-utilising  the  funds  within<br \/>\nthe time  prescribed.  Taking note of the same and in the light of unexplained<br \/>\nreason for not pursuing the first and second charge  memos,  when  admittedly,<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  submitted  his  explanations  denying all the allegations and<br \/>\nconsidering the length of time involved, viz., 20 years, we are  of  the  view<br \/>\nthat  the  judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above (2005 (4) CTC 403),<br \/>\nis directly on the point.  Further, the petitioner has already suffered enough<br \/>\nmental agony on account of the protracted  disciplinary  proceedings.    These<br \/>\nmaterial aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal, which has committed<br \/>\nan error in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                Under  these  circumstances,  the  order of the Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal dated 04.07.2002 made in OA.No.2420 of 1994 and the charge memo dated<br \/>\n05.02.1994 are quashed and the writ petition is allowed.  The petitioner  will<br \/>\nbe entitled  to  all the retiral benefits in accordance with law.  The retiral<br \/>\nbenefits shall be disbursed within a period of two months  from  the  date  of<br \/>\nreceipt of a copy of this order.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Government<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nRural Development Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George<br \/>\nChennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Collector<br \/>\nNellai Kattabomman District<br \/>\n(Now Tirunelveli District).\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The District Development Officer<br \/>\nCheranmadevi<br \/>\nNellai Kattabomman District<br \/>\n(Now Tirunelveli District).\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Block Development Officer<br \/>\nRadhapuram<br \/>\nNellai Kattabomman District<br \/>\n(Now Tirunelveli District).\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Block Development Officer<br \/>\nVelliyoor<br \/>\nNellai Kattabomman District<br \/>\n(Now Tirunelveli District).\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23\/11\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM and THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Petition No.13361 of 2003 Parameswaran .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Rural [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-04T01:36:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T01:36:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2016,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005\",\"name\":\"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T01:36:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-04T01:36:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T01:36:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005"},"wordCount":2016,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005","name":"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T01:36:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-23-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parameswaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 November, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}