Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. After referring to the above proceedings and the order of the Tribunal, dated 21.3.2003, passed in O.A.No.154 of 2003 the learned counsel contended that as the filing of the above applications irked the respondents as well as Mr.Elavazhagan, M.L.A. of Ariyalur constituency, the present charge memo came to be issued at the instance of the M.L.A.

4. The learned counsel also advanced his arguments over the dispute between the petitioner and the said M.L.A. It is stated that on 16.11.2002, a polio campaign was arranged by the petitioner in Ariyalur and the said M.L.A. asked the petitioner to conduct the Polio campaign again on 17.11.2002 also, to which the petitioner was not inclined for the reason that even on 16.11.2002 itself , the campaign covered the entire area with mass participation and that apart, the required medicine was not enough for continuing the campaign on 17.11.2002.

5. It is stated that the M.L.A., who wanted to gain popularity by holding the polio campaign on 17.11.2002 pressurised the petitioner through the Health Minister. By pointing out the scathing remarks made by the State Administrative Tribunal in its order, dated 21.3.2003 as against the M.L.A. as well as the Minister, the learned counsel contended that the present move of the M.L.A. by forwarding his complaint based on some insignificant statement made by the petitioner in the course of his cross examination as a witness in O.S.No.159 of 2003, was solely with a view to victimise the petitioner at the fag end of his career and therefore, interference is called for in this writ petition.

14. The specific grievance of the petitioner as against the M.L.A. was that when the petitioner arranged for the polio campaign on 16.11.2002, the M.L.A. wanted to take advantage of the programme to gain popularity and political stability by calling upon the petitioner to continue the polio campaign for the next day, viz., on 17.11.2002 and when the petitioner rejected his demand on certain valid reasons, the M.L.A. insisted for holding the programme on the next day also applied pressure through the Health Minister for holding the same. As against the circumstances referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1964 AIR SC 72, the case on hand (viz.) that the M.L.A. wanted the polio campaign to be extended for one more day, cannot be said to be for his personal gains. The M.L.A., representing the voters of his constituency, naturally was interested in getting his reputation enhanced by involving himself in as many welfare and health programmes for the public in his constituency. It may be that when the demand of the M.L.A. for conducting the polio campaign on the next day was not agreed to the petitioner, the M.L.A. might have applied pressure on the petitioner through the Health Minister. Even assuming that on that score, the M.L.A., wanted to wreak vengeance against the petitioner, when the impugned charge memo is perused, it cannot be held that the allegations referred to in the impugned charge memo should not be allowed to be probed into any further and to be directed to be closed even without calling for any explanation from the petitioner.