G M VENKATAKUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Deputy Director of Health Services at Erode. He filed O.A.No.8817 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the charge memo dated 28.3.90 as well as the penalty order dated 30.5.99 passed by the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE Tribunal ordered Notice of Motion on 1.12.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 28.5.2002. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re -numbered as W.P.No.40863 of 2006.

(3.) BY the impugned order challenged in the Writ Petition, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Though the petitioner filed an appeal dated 3.5.2000 to the State Government, he did not wait for the outcome of the appeal and so as to move the Tribunal. In the present case, the petitioner while he was working as a District Health Officer at Erode was given a charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules dated 28.8.1988. He submitted his explanation on 24.11.1988. Instead of taking further action on his explanation, curiously the 1st respondent framed a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which was subsequently renamed as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The charges relate to various commissions and omissions when he was holding the post of District Health Officer. The charge memo in respect of each charge was referred to in the evidence in the form of office files available and the petitioner was asked to give explanation. The petitioner sought for perusal of those files and the same was also given to him, which was communicated by a covering letter dated 3.3.1998. The petitioner took further time stating that the incident had taken place more than ten years before and finally he submitted his explanation dated 30.4.1998. After giving the possible explanation about the various commissions and ommissions, the petitioner in the explanation finally requested the 1st respondent to accept his explanation and to drop the charges. The 1st respondent on the basis of the explanation passed the final order dated 30.5.1999, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Before passing the order though it is a charge memo under Rule 17(b), no worthwhile enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner has accepted the charges. This can be seen from the final order passed by the 1st respondent, which is impugned in the Writ Petition.