LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-350

D MUTHIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

Decided On July 16, 2008
D. MUTHIAH Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the order dated 22.10.2007 made in writ petition No.33182 and 3318 of 2007, whereby the relief sought for by the appellant for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with G.O.(2D) No.64 Health and Family Welfare (A2) Department dated 03.11.2004 as amended in letter No.58533/A2/04-1 of the same department dated 24.11.2004 and quash the same and direct the respondent to revise the said G.O. dated 03.11.2004 for regularisation of the period of suspension from 09.08.1986 to 20.12.1987 as - Earned Leave for 176 days from 09.08.1986 to 31.01.1987 and as extra ordinary leave without pay and allowance without medical certificate for 323 days from 01.02.1987 to 20.12.1987 and to issue order for regularisation of the entire period of suspension of the appellant from 09.08.1986 to 20.12.1987 as the period spent on duty for all purposes and revise the G.O. 03.11.2004 as amended on 24.11.2004 for regularisation of the period from 01.03.1989 to 14.08.1989 as Extraordinary leave without pay and allowances without medical certificate and to regularize the entire period of waiting for posting from 22.10.1986 to 14.08.1989 as compulsory wait (WP.33183 of 2007) and for issuance of mandamus directing respondents to consider the claims of the appellant for promotion as Deputy Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare (TB) from 01.09.1986, later upgraded as Joint Director of Medical Services and then again upgraded as Additional Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, and to any other further promotion before the appellant's superannuation to which he is entitled to, by virtue of appellant's seniority and qualifications with all benefits considering the representation of the appellant dated 19.06.2007 (WP.33183 of 2007), was rejected by the writ Court on the ground of latches.

(2.) THE material facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as follows: THE appellant, while working as a District Medical Officer, Ooty was placed under suspension on 09.08.1996 for the irregularities in the purchase of I.V. Fluids, syringes, etc., in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ooty during 1985-86. THE suspension was revoked on 21.12.1987. By G.O. Ms.No.88 Health & Family Welfare Department dated 23.01.1988 the appellant was posted as District Tuberculosis officer, Sivaganaga. THE said order was communicated by the letter of the second respondent dated 11.02.1988, which was received by the appellant on 20.02.1988. But the appellant without joining duty, proceeded on unearned leave on medical certificate for 60 days and for a further period of six months from 21.04.1988. THE appellant was referred to the Medical Board on 24.06.1988 and on the report of the Medical Board dated 21.10.1988 that the appellant was fit for resumption of duty, he was directed to join duty on or before 21.10.1988. On his failure to join duty, he was further directed to join duty as the District Tuberculosis Officer, Sivaganga on or before 20.05.1989. As the appellant did not join duty on that day, a charge memo dated 17.09.1989 was served on the appellant and enquiry was conducted. In the meantime, for the alleged lapse in the purchase of IV fluids, a show cause notice dated 16.06.1988 was issued and on 06.04.1989 charge memo was filed against the appellant. THE appellant, in the meanwhile, attained the age of retirement and was permitted to retire on 31.03.1990 without prejudice to the departmental proceedings pending against him. THE first respondent, by its order in G.O. Ms.No.691 dated 25.11.1993 imposed a punishment of cut in the pension at the rate of Rs.50/- per month for a period of one year. In respect of the alleged irregularity in the purchase of IV fluids by adopting corrupt practices, the first respondent, by G.O. Ms. No.934 dated 10.07.1995 imposed a penalty of pension cut of Rs.2318/-.

(3.) MR. P. Jayaraman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant very innocuously argued that it would suffice if the appellant's representation dated 19.06.2007 is directed to be considered.