{"id":218308,"date":"2009-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-05T08:30:49","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T03:00:49","slug":"murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 04\/12\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA\n\nW.P.(MD) No.1391 of 2009\n&amp; M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2009\n\nMurugesan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1. The President,\n   Kulanthiranpattu Panchayat,\n   Alangudi Taluk,\n   Pudukkootai District.\n\n2. The Block Development Officer,\n   (Village Panchayat),\n   Karambakudi Block,\n   Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District.\n\n3. The District Collector,\n   Pudukkottai,\n   PUdukkottai District.\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n* * *\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue\nWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent\npertaining to his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008 and quash\nthe same as illegal and directing the first respondent to reinstate the\npetitioner to the service.\n* * *\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.K.Baalasundharam\n^For Respondents... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh,\n\t\t    Govt. Advocate\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tBy consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the main<br \/>\npetition is taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008<br \/>\nterminating the petitioner with a prayer to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. The background facts are hereunder :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(i) The petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Assistant by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent by his proceedings dated 16.01.2006.  As the petitioner<br \/>\nsuffered severe attack of Poly-arthritis in the last week of March 2008, he<br \/>\napplied for leave from 27.03.2008 to 30.04.2008 enclosing the Medical<br \/>\nCertificate.  Thereafter, he joined duty on 01.05.2008.  The petitioner was<br \/>\nunable to continue his service from 02.05.2008 and as such, he has applied for<br \/>\nleave from 02.05.2008 to 16.06.2008, but the said leave application sent through<br \/>\nregistered post was returned as the first respondent refused to receive the<br \/>\nsame.  Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 29.05.2008 was served on the<br \/>\npetitioner through registered post on 30.05.2008.  The petitioner submitted his<br \/>\nexplanation to the first respondent by registered post on 02.06.2008.<br \/>\nThereafter, when the petitioner went to the office of the first respondent on<br \/>\n17.06.2008, the first respondent informed him that he was terminated from<br \/>\nservice and the petitioner was not allowed to join duty.  The petitioner neither<br \/>\nreceived any notice for enquiry nor the termination order and the termination<br \/>\norder was passed without conducting any proper enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(ii) The petitioner made representation dated 30.06.2008 to the<br \/>\nrespondents 2 and 3 marking a copy to the first respondent.  A representation<br \/>\ndated 21.07.2008 was also given to the third respondent and the said<br \/>\nrepresentations were not considered and as such, the petitioner filed a writ<br \/>\npetition in W.P.No.7110 of 2008 seeking for a direction to the first respondent<br \/>\nto allow the petitioner to join duty and only, thereafter, the first respondent<br \/>\nconcocted the charge memo, suspension order and termination order. The said writ<br \/>\npetition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner was<br \/>\nalready terminated and also given liberty to the petitioner to challenge the<br \/>\ntermination order. It is submitted that the petitioner received the copy of the<br \/>\ncharge memo, suspension order and termination order only at the time of filing<br \/>\nearlier writ petition in W.P.No.7110 of 2008. Under the above said<br \/>\ncircumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the<br \/>\nimpugned termination order was passed against the petitioner without affording<br \/>\nany opportunity and without conducting any enquiry in the manner known to law.<br \/>\nIt is contended that except serving the show-cause notice, the first respondent<br \/>\nneither served with the charge memo nor the termination order till date of<br \/>\nfiling this writ petition.  It is contended that the petitioner came to know<br \/>\neven in respect of passing the impugned order of termination only after filing<br \/>\nthe earlier writ petition. The learned counsel would also submit that the<br \/>\nrepresentations given by the petitioner were not considered by the first<br \/>\nrespondent in spite of the acknowledgement of the same.  It is further contended<br \/>\nthat the termination order passed without conducting any enquiry in the manner<br \/>\nknown to law is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the following decisions :<br \/>\n(1)<a href=\"\/doc\/1375856\/\">P.Adhikesavelu V. The District Collector, Thiruvallur<\/a> reported in 2004 (2)<br \/>\nL.W. 577 ;\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)<a href=\"\/doc\/706125\/\">A.Uma Rani V. District Collector<\/a> reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 11 ; and<br \/>\n(3)<a href=\"\/doc\/128440537\/\">R.Palanivel V. Commissioner, Gingee Panchayat Union<\/a> reported in 2008 (5) MLJ<br \/>\n1284 ;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Per contra, Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate<br \/>\nsubmitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order of termination<br \/>\npassed by the first respondent.  It is contended that the petitioner was given<br \/>\nopportunity before passing the impugned order as admittedly, a show-cause notice<br \/>\nwas served on him.  The learned counsel for the respondents would further<br \/>\ncontend that in spite of serving the show-cause notice, the petitioner has not<br \/>\nchosen to give any explanation and as such, the first respondent come to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the petitioner has nothing to explain in respect of the charges<br \/>\nframed against him and accordingly, the impugned order of termination was<br \/>\npassed. It is further contended that the petitioner is having an alternative<br \/>\nremedy of preferring an appeal and as such, the writ petition itself is not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by<br \/>\neither sides and perused the materials available on record including the<br \/>\nimpugned order of termination.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. At the outset, it is to be stated that the first respondent has<br \/>\nchosen to pass a cryptic and non-speaking order of termination.  A perusal of<br \/>\nthe impugned order reveals that the first respondent without conducting any<br \/>\nenquiry in the manner known to law passed the impugned order. It is seen that<br \/>\nexcept serving the show-cause notice, the first respondent has not followed any<br \/>\nother established procedures, viz., conducting enquiry and thereafter issuing<br \/>\nthe order. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has come forward with the<br \/>\ncategorical version that neither the charge memo nor the termination order was<br \/>\nserved on him.  But the first respondent has chosen to state in his counter that<br \/>\nthe said charge memo, suspension order and the termination order were served on<br \/>\nthe petitioner by affixture by the Village Administrative Officer.   Contrary to<br \/>\nthe above statement, in the very same counter it is stated that the suspension<br \/>\norder was served through Makkalnala Paniyalar instead of Village Administrative<br \/>\nOfficer.  It is subsequently stated in the very same paragraph that the<br \/>\npetitioner refused to receive the suspension order, charge memo and the<br \/>\ntermination order.  But the relevant dates were not mentioned in para 19 of the<br \/>\ncounter.  It is pertinent to note that even in paragraph 7 of the counter, it is<br \/>\nnot clearly stated whether the affixutre was made in the presence of any<br \/>\nwitnesses or they have followed the procedure in respect of serving notice<br \/>\nthrough affixture and there is no material placed before this Court to<br \/>\nsubstantiate their claim to the effect that the said documents were served on<br \/>\nthe petitioner through affixture.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. Be it as it may, even assuming if not admitting that the said<br \/>\ndocuments were served on the petitioner, it is not open to the first respondent<br \/>\nto straightaway issue the impugned termination order without conducting any<br \/>\nenquiry in the manner known to law. Admittedly, the first respondent has not<br \/>\nconducted any enquiry before passing the impugned order as the impugned order<br \/>\nitself reveals that the enquiry was not conducted. Therefore, this Court has no<br \/>\nhesitation to hold that the impugned order of termination was passed in flagrant<br \/>\nviolation of principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. This Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1375856\/\">P.Adhikesavelu V. The District Collector,<br \/>\nThiruvallur,<\/a> reported in 2004-2 L.W. 577 held as follows :<br \/>\n\t&#8220;10. It is also not in dispute that the Rural Development Department, by<br \/>\nproceedings dated 20.11.2001 clarified that even while exercising the powers<br \/>\nconferred under Section 84 of the Act, the Presidents of the village panchayats<br \/>\nshall not terminate the services of any servants of panchayat, without giving<br \/>\nany reasonable opportunity to defend their case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In the instant case, it is apparent on the face of records that the<br \/>\npetitioner was not given any such opportunity to defend his case, before passing<br \/>\nthe impugned resolution, which is contrary to the procedure and also violates<br \/>\nthe principles of natural justice.  In my considered opinion, the impugned<br \/>\nresolution is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. Consequently,<br \/>\nthe proceedings of the third respondent\/President, Veeraganallur Panchayat,<br \/>\nappointing the fourth respondent as a part time clerk is also quashed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. In yet another decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/706125\/\">A.Uma Rani V. District Collector<\/a><br \/>\nreported in 2008 (5) MLJ 11 has held that,<br \/>\n\t&#8220;12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and<br \/>\nkeeping in view the ratio of the aforesaid decision, it is held that in the<br \/>\nabsence of enquiry relating to some of the allegations, which required some<br \/>\npositive evidence on the side of the respondents, the impugned order cannot be<br \/>\nsustained.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. This Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/128440537\/\">R.Palanivel V. Commissioner, Gingee Panchayat<br \/>\nUnion<\/a> reported in 2008 (5) MLJ 1284 has held as hereunder :<br \/>\n\t&#8220;16. The impugned order does not indicate the basis on which the<br \/>\nallegations were said to have been proved.  Whereas, it proceeds on the basis<br \/>\nthat the explanations offered by the petitioner are false and without any basis.<br \/>\nThough the respondent in their counter affidavit has contended that the<br \/>\nappointment of the petitioner is not in accordance with the procedure and that<br \/>\nhe was not sponsored by the employment exchange, it is not the ground for<br \/>\ntermination and therefore, it is not open to the respondents to gain support<br \/>\nfrom the counter affidavit.  It is settled law that the impugned order has to<br \/>\nstand or fall, for the reasons contained therein and that the respondents cannot<br \/>\nimprove their case by the averments in the counter affidavit.  The petitioner<br \/>\nwas a part-time employee. Serious charges of misappropriation has been levelled<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner and that he cannot be simply be terminated without<br \/>\nholding a regular departmental enquiry. Termination on the grounds of<br \/>\nmisappropriation certainly casts a stigma.  When an employee has denied the<br \/>\ncharges by way of explanation, the authorities have no other alternative, except<br \/>\nto conduct a detailed enquiry and give sufficient opportunity to the employee.<br \/>\nWhen statute contemplates a procedure for termination of an employee, part-time<br \/>\nemployees are also entitled to the protection under Article 311 (2) of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India and that the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPanchayat Act or any other Rule has to be followed.  Therefore, I am of the view<br \/>\nthat the impugned order passed in violations of the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice, warrants interference. Accordingly, the impugned order of termination<br \/>\nis set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to conduct<br \/>\nan enquiry into the charges, after giving sufficient opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioner.  However, in respect of regularisation is concerned, it depends upon<br \/>\nthe decision in the disciplinary proceedings.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. \tThe principle laid down by this Court in the decisions cited<br \/>\nsupra is squarely applicable to the case on hand as in this case also<br \/>\nadmittedly, the impugned order of termination was passed without affording any<br \/>\nopportunity to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry in the manner<br \/>\nknown to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. The learned counsel for the respondents made a feeble attempt to<br \/>\ncontend that the petitioner is also having an alternative remedy of preferring<br \/>\nan appeal and as such, this writ petition is not maintainable. I am unable to<br \/>\ncountenance with such argument as it is well-settled that in the event of<br \/>\nviolation of principles of natural justice, this Court can very well interfere<br \/>\nin the impugned order. It is well settled by the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court that<br \/>\navailability of an alternative remedy is itself not a bar for invoking the writ<br \/>\njurisdiction of this Court. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1593674\/\">Committee of Management &amp; Anr. V. Vice Chancellor &amp; Ors.<\/a><br \/>\nreported in 2009 (1) Supreme 101, wherein, the Hon&#8217;ble Apex Court held as<br \/>\nhereunder :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;20. Apart from the fact that a statutory authority cannot consider the<br \/>\nvalidity of a Statute, as has been urged before us by Mr.Choudhari, it is beyond<br \/>\nany doubt or dispute that availability of an alternative remedy by itself may<br \/>\nnot be a ground for the High Court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction.  It<br \/>\nmay exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the fact that an alternative remedy<br \/>\nis available, inter alia, in a case where the same would not be an efficacious<br \/>\none.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. Furthermore, when an order has been passed by an authority without<br \/>\njurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice, the superior<br \/>\ncourts shall not refuse to exercise their jurisdiction although there exists an<br \/>\nalternative remedy.  In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the<br \/>\nobservations made by this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1885496\/\">Whirlpool Corporation V.<br \/>\nRegistrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai &amp; Ors<\/a> (1998) 8 SCC 1 :<br \/>\n\t&#8220;15. &#8230;. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this<br \/>\nCourt not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the<br \/>\nwrit petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental<br \/>\nRights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice<br \/>\nor where the order of proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires<br \/>\nof an Act is challenged. &#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(See also <a href=\"\/doc\/1142205\/\">Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee &amp; Anr. V. C.K.Rajan &amp;<br \/>\nOrs.<\/a> (2003) 7 SCC 546).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is constrained to<br \/>\nset aside the impugned proceedings and accordingly, the proceedings of the first<br \/>\nrespondent in Na.Ka.No.1 of 2008 dated 17.07.2008 is hereby quashed.<br \/>\nConsequently, the first respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner<br \/>\nwithin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.<br \/>\nIt is made clear that it is open to the respondent herein to conduct fresh<br \/>\nenquiry in the manner known to law by giving effective opportunity to the<br \/>\npetitioner to defend his case.\n<\/p>\n<p>K.N.BASHA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>gg\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15. It is made clear that in the event of conducting fresh enquiry,<br \/>\nthe same shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gg<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The President,<br \/>\n   Kulanthiranpattu Panchayat,<br \/>\n   Alangudi Taluk,<br \/>\n   Pudukkootai District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Block Development Officer,<br \/>\n   (Village Panchayat),<br \/>\n   Karambakudi Block,<br \/>\n   Alangudi Taluk,<br \/>\n   Pudukkottai District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The District Collector,<br \/>\n   Pudukkottai,<br \/>\n   PUdukkottai District.\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/12\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA W.P.(MD) No.1391 of 2009 &amp; M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2009 Murugesan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The President, Kulanthiranpattu Panchayat, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkootai District. 2. The Block Development Officer, (Village [&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-218308","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009 - 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\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-05T03:00:49+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T03:00:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2245,\"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\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T03:00:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009 - 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\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-05T03:00:49+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T03:00:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009"},"wordCount":2245,"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\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009","name":"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T03:00:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murugesan-vs-the-president-on-4-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murugesan vs The President on 4 December, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/218308","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=218308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}