{"id":54517,"date":"2005-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005"},"modified":"2014-07-30T20:37:47","modified_gmt":"2014-07-30T15:07:47","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 17\/11\/2005  \n\nC O R A M  \n\nTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM        \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN        \n\nWrit Petition No.19934 of 2002\na n d\nW.P.M.P.No.27519 of 2002   \na n d\nW.V.M.P.No.498 of 2003  \n\n\n\n1.  State of Tamil Nadu\n    rep. by the Secretary to Government\n    Home Department \n    Fort St. George\n    Chennai 9.\n\n2.  The Inspector General of Prisons\n    Chennai 8.\n\n3.  The Deputy Inspector General\n      of Prisons\n    Chennai 8.\n\n4.  The Superintendent\n    Central Prison\n    Cuddalore.                          ...             Petitioners\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1.  T. Muniraj Naidu\n\n2.  The Registrar\n    Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n    Chennai 600 104.            ...             Respondents.\n\n\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, as stated therein.\n\n!For petitioners        ...     Mr.D.Krishna Kumar\n                        Spl.  Government Pleader\n\n\n^For respondents        ...     Mr.R.Gandhi, Sr.  Counsel\n                        for Mr.M.Kamalanathan\n                        for R.1.\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
S.K.KRISHNAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
                The  writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue
\na writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Tamil Nadu  Administrative
\nTribunal,  the  second  respondent  herein,  pertaining  to the orders made in
\nO.A.No.4861 of 1996 dated 21\/8\/2001 and to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  In the affidavit filed in support of  the  writ  petition,
\nthe  petitioners  had  stated that the orders of the Tamil Nadu Administrative
\nTribunal  dated  21\/8\/2001  in  O.A.No.4861\/1999,  wherein  the   Tamil   Nadu
\nAdministrative Tribunal had set aside the punishment of “Removal from service”
\nimposed  on  the first respondent, with directions to reinstate him in service
\nwith all service and monetary benefits.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  The case of the petitioners is that the  first  respondent
\nwas  working  as  Warder  Grade-II  in Prison Department attached to Sub-jail,
\nTindivanam from 1\/9\/1977.    While  he  was  serving  as  Warder  Grade-II  at
\nSub-jail,  Tindivanam, he was entrusted to attend duty on 31\/10\/1984 , between
\n10.00 p.m.  and 12.00 mid night.  On 31\/10\/1984 around 11.0 0 p.m.,  when  the
\nSub-jail  Superintendent  inspected  the  jail,  he  did  not  find  the first
\nrespondent at the place where he was assigned to attend the duty.  However, he
\nfound the first respondent sleeping in front of the steps of  the  Court  hall
\nunder  the influence of some giddiness, thereby he was issued a charge memo on
\n28\/11\/1984 by the Superintendent, Sub-jail, Tindivanam.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  The gist of the charges is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “You are working in Sub-jail, Tindivanam and  serving  in  the
\nPrison Department for the past seven years.  You are duty bound to observe the
\nrules and regulations.  On 31\/10\/1984 night at 10 – 12 p.m., you were allotted
\ntreasury para  duty.   During your duty time you have placed the musket in the
\nSuperintendent’s table and sleeping  in  the  doorsteps  of  the  Court  after
\ndrinking.   During  night  rounds by the Subjail Superintendent, you have been
\nfound in the doorstep’s of Court and even after sprinkling water in your  face
\nyou are  unable  to stand due to intoxication.  Thus during para duty time you
\nhave slept outside the Prison and the musket belonging to Govt.    with  pouch
\nwas  placed  in the Superintendent’s table without any responsibility and thus
\nfailed in his duties and therefore, this charge.”\n<\/p>\n
                5.   After  the  conclusion  of  the  enquiry,   the   enquiry
\nauthorities  found  him  guilty  of the charges proved and on the basis of the
\nsaid finding, disciplinary authorities finally passed an order terminating the
\nfirst respondent from the service on 21\/3\/1991 and the same was  confirmed  by
\nthe Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.116 (Home) dated 27\/3\/1992 .  As against the
\nsaid dismissal order passed by the authorities, the first respondent preferred
\nO.A.No.4861  of  1996  before  the  Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the
\nTribunal, after considering the relevant materials and  also  considering  the
\nrelevant  connected  documents  related  to  the  findings,  allowed  the said
\npetition in favour of the first respondent.  Aggrieved against the said  order
\npassed  by  the  Tamil  Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the State of Tamil Nadu,
\nrepresented by the Secretary to the  Government,  Home  Department,  preferred
\nthis  writ  petition  under  Article  226  of the Constitution of India with a
\nprayer to call for the records of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,  the
\nsecond respondent herein, pertaining to the orders made in O.A.No.4861 of 1996
\ndated 21\/8\/2001 and to quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   It  is  an  admitted  fact  that the first respondent was
\nfacing disciplinary proceedings  from  4\/12\/1984  till  he  was  removed  from
\nservice on 27\/3\/1992.  Thereafter, he approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative
\nTribunal for  necessary  relief.    It is relevant here to refer to the relief
\ngranted by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Therefore, we are of the view  that  the  applicant  is  entitled  to
\nsucceed.   The  application  is  allowed  and  entire  disciplinary proceeding
\nincluding the final orders passed by the respondents 1 to  4  are  set  aside.
\nThe  applicant  shall  be  reinstated in service with all service and monetary
\nbenefits.”\n<\/p>\n
                7.  For quashing the said order passed by the Tamil Nadu State
\nAdministrative Tribunal, the learned counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners
\nwould emphasise on the following points.\n<\/p>\n
                The   Tribunal,  while  considering  the  case  of  the  first
\nrespondent, miserably failed to note that the first respondent being a  person
\nin  an  uniformed  disciplinary  force  and also to take care of the prisoners
\nlodged, to watch them, to avoid, escape  of  the  prisoners  or  any  untoward
\nincident  that  may  happen  in prisons and they are expected to be vigil in a
\nnight duty.  Whereas, the first respondent who was away from the  place  where
\nhe  was  expected  to  attend  the  duty  in  a particular place, slept during
\nparticular hour in an abnormal circumstances, which  is  considered  to  be  a
\ngrave misconduct.  Without considering this aspect and misconduct committed by
\nthe  first respondent being a person in an uniformed service, the Tribunal has
\ncome to an erroneous conclusion and held that the  harassment  itself  (facing
\nenquiry by the first respondent before the disciplinary authorities for a long
\ntime)  would  be  a sufficient punishment for the delinquency, is not at all a
\nreasonable one and the same is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Per  contra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  first
\nrespondent,  would vehemently contend that without any sufficient evidence and
\nmaterials available against him, the disciplinary authority passed  the  order
\nof removal  from  service.    However, the Tribunal after analysing the entire
\ncircumstances, arrived at a reasonable conclusion to set aside the said order.
\nFurther, the learned counsel, would state that after analysing the  harassment
\nmeted   out  to  the  first  respondent  in  the  pretext  of  conducting  the
\ndisciplinary proceedings for a long time, which is considered as a  harassment
\nto  the  first respondent and thereby concluded a correct decision, by setting
\naside the order of dismissal by the authorities.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Further, while deciding the matter, the  Tribunal  was  of
\nthe view that the power of remittance has been abused by the authorities in an
\narbitrary   manner  and  hence,  the  learned  counsel  pointed  out  that  no
\ninterference is needed by this Court to quash the order passed  by  the  Tamil
\nNadu Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   In  this  regard,  Mr.D.Krishna  Kumar,  learned Special
\nGovernment Pleader would contend that eventhough the Tribunal passed an  order
\nto  reinstate  the first respondent in service, the first respondent is not at
\nall entitled to receive full backwages during the relevant period.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   It  is  pointed  out  by  learned  counsel   that   when
\nconsidering  the misconduct committed by the first respondent and the same was
\nduty proved before the authorities, the disciplinary  authorities  passed  the
\ndismissal order is a reasonable one.  In that circumstances, the punishment of
\ndismissal cannot be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
                12.     In  support  of  his  contention,  the learned counsel
\nrelied on the following decisions for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  With regard to the first reason emphasised by the learned
\ncounsel, the following decision is relied on.\n<\/p>\n
                In M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs.  JAGDISH CHANDRA SHARMA (2005 (3)
\nSUPREME COURT CASES 401), relied on its  decision  in  Mahindra  and  Mahindra
\nLtd., Vs.   N.B.NARAWADE  (2005  (3)  S.C.C.  134), wherein, the Supreme Court
\nheld as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “20.  It is no doubt true that after introduction  of  Section
\n11  A  in  the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested
\nwith the Labour Court\/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the  quantum  of
\npunishment  awarded  by  the  management  where the workman concerned is found
\nguilty of misconduct.  The said area of discretion has been very well  defined
\nby  the  various  judgments  of  this  Court referred to hereinabove and it is
\ncertainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt.  The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11 A is  available
\nonly   on   the   existence   of   certain   factors   like  punishment  being
\ndisproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the  conscience
\nof  the  Court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require
\nthe reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the  workman  which  may
\npersuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment.”\n<\/p>\n
                14.   With  regard to the second point, learned counsel relied
\non INDIAN RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CO.  LTD Vs.   AJAY  KUMAR  (2003  (4)  SUPREME
\nCOURT  CASES – 579), the Supreme Court relied on a three-Judge decision of the
\nSupreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN TIN WORKS (p) Ltd Vs.  EMPLOYEES  (1979
\n(2) S.C.C.  80), wherein, the Supreme Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “In  the  very nature of things there cannot be a straitjacket formula
\nfor awarding relief of back wages.  All relevant considerations will enter the
\nverdict.  More or less, it would be a motion addressed to  the  discretion  of
\nthe Tribunal.    Full  back  wages  would  be  the  normal  rule and the party
\nobjecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure.   At
\nthat  stage  the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the
\nrelevant circumstances.  But the discretion must be exercised  in  a  judicial
\nand judicious manner.  The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and
\nconvincing and  must  appear  on the face of the record.  When it is said that
\nsomething is to be  done  according  to  the  rules  of  reason  and  justice,
\naccording to  law  and  not  humour.    It  is  not to be arbitrary, vague and
\nfanciful<\/p>\n
but legal and regular (see Susannah Sharp Vs.  Wakefield, AC at p.179).\n<\/p>\n
                15.  However with  regard  to  the  findings  arrived  by  the
\nauthorities,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for the first respondent would
\nsubmit that the discrepancies and inconsistencies found in the charge memo and
\nin the findings are visibly exposed and the same are affecting the root of the
\ncharges.  The inconsistencies found between the findings and the  charge  memo
\nhave  been clearly discussed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the Tribunal has
\nconcluded that the awarding of punishment is something which is not  found  in
\nthe  charge  memo  has  been  ordered  and  it  has influenced the mind of the
\nauthority in awarding the extreme penalty of removal from service.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  Further, the learned counsel would  point  out  that  the
\nabuse  of  procedure  adopted  by  the  authorities would very much affect the
\nmental condition of the first respondent and he had experienced such a kind of
\nmental agony continuously from the date of receiving the charge memo  till  he
\ngot favourable  orders  from  the  Tribunal.  It is pointed out by the counsel
\nthat the agony meted out to the first respondent  in  the  pretext  of  facing
\nenquiry  before  the  authorities  for  the  long  time itself is a sufficient
\npunishment for the first respondent.  Accordingly, the Tribunal  has  taken  a
\ncorrect decision,  ordering  him  to  be reinstated in service.  This point is
\nalso appreciated by the Tribunal in paragraph 19 which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “We are of the view that the applicant has not been  punished,
\nbut  harassed,  and the harassment meted out to him will be sufficient for the
\ndelinquency he has committed.”\n<\/p>\n
                17.  With regard to the  charge  memo  furnished  against  the
\nfirst  respondent,  it was stated that while the first respondent was on night
\npatrol between 10.00 p.m.  to 12.00 p.m., on 31\/10\/1984, he was not present in
\nthe place of duty, but slept somewhere else  after  drinking.    The  Sub-jail
\nSuperintendent  found  the  first  respondent  in an intoxicated condition and
\naccordingly, the above stated charge memo was furnished.  It is  a  fact  that
\nthe  first  respondent  was found sleeping outside the place of work under the
\ninfluence of drinking.  The said allegation of consuming liquor by  the  first
\nrespondent was  not  proved.    However,  all  the departmental witnesses have
\ncategorically stated that the first respondent at the relevant point  of  time
\nwas  away  from the place where he was expected to attend the night para work.
\nConsidering this aspect, the disciplinary  authorities  found  him  guilty  of
\nmisconduct.   When  comparing  the  punishment awarded by the authorities with
\nregard to the misconduct committed by the first respondent with  that  of  the
\nmental  agony  which  he  had  experienced  from  the beginning of the enquiry
\nproceedings till he got favourable orders from the  Tribunal,  the  punishment
\nimposed against  the  first  respondent is disproportionate.  Accordingly, the
\nTribunal while deciding the case, concluded that the punishment awarded by the
\ndisciplinary  authority  against  the  first  respondent  is  too   excessive.
\nAccordingly, the punishment was set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                18.   We  are  not in dispute about the decision arrived at by
\nthe Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal with regard to the passing  of  setting
\naside the  order  of  dismissal.    However,  we are not in agreement with the
\ndecision awarding monetary benefits to the first respondent in  the  event  of
\nhis reinstatement in service.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   As  per  the  legal  principles observed in the decision
\nreported  by  the  learned  Special  Government  Pleader  in  INDIAN   RAILWAY
\nCONSTRUCTION CO.   LTD  Vs.   AJAY KUMAR (2003 (4) SUPREME COURT CASES – 579),
\nwhile affirming  the  decision  taken  by  the  Tribunal  in  respect  of  the
\nreinstatement of the first respondent, however when considering the misconduct
\ncommitted  by the first respondent we differ from the findings of the Tribunal
\nin this aspect in allowing the first respondent to receive  all  the  monetary
\nbenefits in the event of his reinstatement into service.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   In  the light of the discussions referred to above while
\nconsidering the entire aspects, we  modify  the  payment  of  back  wages  and
\nrestrict it to 50%.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   With  the above modification, the above writ petition is
\ndisposed of.  No costs.  Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.No.  27519  of  2
\n002 and W.V.M.P.No.498 of 2003 are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
mvs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
website:  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Registrar
\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
\nChennai 600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17\/11\/2005 C O R A M THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM AND THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN Writ Petition No.19934 of 2002 a n d W.P.M.P.No.27519 of 2002 a n d W.V.M.P.No.498 of […]<\/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-54517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-30T15:07:47+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\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-30T15:07:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2232,\"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\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-30T15:07:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 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:\\\/\\\/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":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-30T15:07:47+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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-30T15:07:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005"},"wordCount":2232,"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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-30T15:07:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-t-muniraj-naidu-on-17-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs T. Muniraj Naidu on 17 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:\/\/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\/54517","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=54517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}