R VINOBAJI Vs. THE DIRECTOR, THE FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT; THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MEDICAL RURAL HEALTH SERVICES AND FAMILY WELFARE; THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES; THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as a Store Keeper in Primary Health Centre, Kuruvikulam, Tirunelveli District. A criminal case came to be registered against him in Crime No. 12 of 2006 on the file of the District Crime Branch, Tirunelveli for offences under Sections 120(B), 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 477(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Based on the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Deputy Director of Medical Rural Health Services and Family Welfare, Tirunelveli, by his proceedings in R. No. 591/FW/OS/06, dated 13.03.2006. In the said order of suspension, the petitioner was directed to remain at Kuruvikulam during the period of suspension. Subsequently, the petitioner made a request on 21.03.2006 to permit him to remain at Coimbatore, where his wife was undergoing treatment for some serious illness. The said request of the petitioner dated 21.03.2006 was, however, rejected by the Deputy Director, by order dated 21.04.2006. In the same order, the Deputy Director expressed that the petitioner could make a further representation to the Directorate seeking for such permission to remain at Coimbatore. Accordingly, he made a request on 19.09.2006. In the said request, he had stated that his wife and son are in Coimbatore. But, no order, whatsoever, was passed by the Director on the said request. Suddenly, the second respondent, by his proceedings in Na.Ka. No. 591/Ku.Na/A.ka/06, dated 10.01.2007, has passed orders stopping the payment of subsistence allowance in terms of fundamental Rules 53(3) and G.O.Ms. No. 1595, Finance Department, dated 22.10.1969. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner requested for permission to stay at Coimbatore during the period of suspension, since he was not allowed, he remains only in Kuruvikulam, as directed in the suspension order. He would further submit that without calling for any explanation from the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. Mainly, on these two grounds, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would try to assail the impugned order.

(3.) The learned Additional Government Pleader would, however, stoutly oppose the Writ Petition. She would submit that as a matter of fact, the petitioner did not remain at Kuruvikulam and instead, he was remaining only in Coimbatore without permission. That is the reason why, the impugned order came to be passed, it is contended. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that a letter addressed to the petitioner to his permanent address at Coimbatore was served on him at Coimbatore address, which indicates that the petitioner was then residing only in Coimbatore and not at Kuruvikulam. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the impugned order does not require any interference.