G SUBRAMANIAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the constitution of India for the issuance of a writ to quash G. O. Ms. No. 135 Health & Family Welfare Department dated 22-1-1985 of the first respondent, government of Tamil Nadu and to pass such further and necessary orders.

(2.) THIS petitioner joined the service of the Government of Tamil Nadu in the Department of Health and Family Welfare as an Assistant surgeon, Government Hospital, Gudiyatham. In course of time, he was promoted and became the Professor and Head of the department of Medicine, Government Erskine Hospital , Madurai. He was due to retire on the afternoon on 30-6-1977 on attaining the age of superannuation. That afternoon, he was informed by the Dean of the Madurai Medical College that a telephonic message had been received by him from the first respondent, government of Tamil Nadu, placing the petitioner under suspension and not permitting him to retire. G. O. Ms. No. 1547, dated 30-6-1977 passed by the first respondent states that a criminal offence was under investigation against the petitioner and that it was, therefore, necessary in public interest to place him under suspension and was placed under suspension with immediate effect. It is also stated therein that he shall not be allowed to retire until further orders. About two years later on 9-3-1979 he received a charge memo and three charges of corruption were framed against him. The enquiry was conducted by the deputy Commissioner for Disciplinary proceedings. He found that charges 1 and 3 were proved and charge No. 2 was not proved. The first respondent accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Deputy Commissioner, and issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from service. It is at this stage, the petitioner filed this writ petition for quashing the charge memo. Subsequently, it seems the Government have passedg. O. Ms. No. 135, Health dated 22-1-1985 removing the petitioner from service. Consequently the petitioner has amended the prayer and is seeking for quashing the aforesaid Government order.

(3.) IT is also contended by Mrs. Ramani Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry/against the petitioner has been conducted by the Deputy Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings instead of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings. Reliance is sought to be placed on G. O. Ms. No. 53, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-N) Department dated 19-11-1976. IT is seen therefrom that all corruption cases relating to the Gazetted Officers have to be referred to the Commissioner for Disciplinary prroceedings, whereas the cases relating to non-gazetted Government officers have to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for Disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner is a Gazetted Officer and that the disciplinary proceedings against him ought to have been conducted by the Commissioner for Disciplinary proceedings and not by the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner. The learned government Advocate has no answer thereto. On this ground also, the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and his findings are unsustainable.