D SAMSON Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was working as a Laboratory Technician (Grade-I) in the Government Hemerijokx Leprosy Centre at Polambakkam, Kancheepuram District filed Original Application in O.A.No.7531 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to set aside the order of removal made in G.O.(D) No.155, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 22.02.2000 by the first respondent confirming the order dated 19.01.1990 of the second respondent - District Medical Officer removing the petitioner from service.

(2.) IN the Original Application, notice of motion was ordered on 16.10.2000. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated Nil (March 2006).

(3.) IN the Original Application, the petitioner relied upon Rule 18(3) of the Fundamental Rules and also stated that he is entitled to get a minimum punishment. The petitioner was not allowed to put forth his views before the enquiry officer and therefore, the impugned order was illegal. Though the petitioner expressed his willingness to join duty vide his representation dated 04.08.1988, the same was not considered by the respondents. IN the present case, before accepting the enquiry report submitted by the Medical Officer, the petitioner was not given any notice. But the petitioner did not make that an issue, in his appeal memorandum dated 18.03.1998. Without the benefit of such a right, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority rejected the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was prejudiced by the non-furnishing of the enquiry report before his acceptance.