M RAMULA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed by Dr. Ramula seeking for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the charge sheet dated 15.7.2001 bearing reference Memo. R. No. 1708/PHC3/1993 issued by the third respondent, Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and promote the petitioner (C.M.L. No. 5109) as Civil Surgeon with effect from the date when her immediate junior viz., the fifth respondent herein with C.M.L. No. 5110 was promoted pursuant to the proceedings dated 22.10.2007 issued by the second respondent with due seniority, difference in monetary benefits of Assistant Surgeon and Civil Surgeon and all attendant and consequential benefits. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined as Assistant Surgeon on 5.6.1989 after having been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Later, she was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, Munjurai under the control of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, she was posted as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre (PHC), Old Karuvatchi. When she was in-charge of the Primary Health Centre, Old Karuvatchi, one Pharmacist by name Arul Maravan, the husband of the sixth respondent unfortunately, committed self immolation by pouring kerosene on himself in the very sub-centre, where he was working and that sub-centre was under the in-charge of the petitioner. As a number of Treasury receipts, token and cash were found around the said deceased Arul Maravan, who is in-charge of the accounts, on 31.7.1992, the petitioner informed the same to the Deputy Director, Health Services, Villupuram and requested him to conduct Special Audit in the Public Health Centre, Old Karuvatchi. As per the instruction of the Deputy Director, the amount was remitted to the treasury on the same day itself. Subsequently, the petitioner was sent for Training for a period of three weeks. Thereafter, she gave complaint to the Deputy Director of Public Health in writing with a request to conduct a special Audit inspection for the misappropriation committed by the said Arul Maravan. While so, the Deputy Director, Villupuram, without conducting any enquiry, issued proceedings dated 21.1.1993 to the petitioner and one Dr. G. Mallika, who was there when Arul Maravan, Pharmacist was looking after the work of Junior Assistant, for recovery of Rs. 2,48,001/- and Rs. 1,01,430/- respectively. Subsequently, the said Mallika quit the service. On 13.3.1993, the petitioner requested the authorities to conduct an enquiry. Despite her request, she was periodically asked to remit the amount of Rs. 2,48,001/-. After nine years of the alleged incident, she was issued with a charge memo dated 15.7.2001 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The two charges framed against the petitioner are as follows:

(2.) On the receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted her representation dated 13.3.1993 stating that out of two, she was the only in-charge of the Public Health Centre and the said Arul Maravan, Pharmacist who has committed self immolation, was given additional responsibility of Junior Assistant because the regular Junior Assistant of the Centre was deputed to some other Public Health Centre. Despite all the above facts, the sixth respondent Pushpa was given all the terminal benefits of his husband Arul Maravan and also given Compassionate appointment.

(3.) It was further submitted that an enquiry officer was appointed on 22.11.2002. On 16.9.2003, the petitioner sought for copies of certain documents. But, certain copies of the documents, which were sought for by the petitioner were furnished to her only on 27.7.2004. Though the enquiry officer was appointed on 22.11.2002, the enquiry was conducted only on 31.5.2005. At the time of enquiry, no witness was examined and no document was marked to support the charges framed against the petitioner. The respondents have not furnished the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner as they have not completed the enquiry, Therefore, the petitioner after having waited for 9 long years, has come to this Court, by way of filing the writ petition.