SURENDRANATH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Deputy Director of Health Services, Thoothukudi. He has come forward to challenge the order of the State Government made in G.O.(D).No.401, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 20.04.1999 seeking to set aside the same and for consequential benefits. Pending the O.A., he had also sought for interim order. THE Tribunal admitted the O.A., on 17.11.2000. But the petitioner did not have the benefit of any interim order.

(2.) ON notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent- State has filed a reply affidavit dated 22.03.2006. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.45552 of 2006.

(3.) IN the present case, on the question of delay in framing charges, this Court is not inclined to consider the same because in the course of enquiry relating to bribery charge, other irregularities came to light. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a deliberate delay in conducting the enquiry. The question of consultation with the Public Service Commission flows from Article 320(3) of the Constitution. Though the said article directs a consultation by the State Government, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the article in several of its decisions. It was found that the term "shall" occurring in Article 320(3) is only directory and not mandatory.