K MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND DIRECTOR OF INDIAN MEDICINE AND HOMOEOPATHY OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN MEDICINE AND HOMOEOPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was appointed as Staff Nurse on 10.10.1974. THEreafter in the year 1999, she was transferred to Siddha Wing from the parent department and posted at District Siddha Hospital, Erode wherein she joined the duty on 15.07.1999. She worked in the said hospital till 27.09.2007. By an order dated 24.10.2007, she was transferred to the parent department.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working at District Siddha Hospital, Erode, a complaint was made against her by the Deputy Medical Officer Mr.T.Muthukrishnan on the ground that the petitioner remained absent for the night duty on 01.03.2006. Based on the above said complaint, a show cause notice dated 10.03.2006 was issued by the District Siddha Hospital, Erode and not satisfied with her reply, final order was passed on 21.04.2006 wherein the petitioner was let off with warning. It is also seen that the said T.Muthukrishnan also given a complaint in Cr.No,349 of 2007 against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC. However the said complaint was closed as 'mistake of fact'.. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to the parent department namely, the second respondent. A certificate was also issued by the District Siddha Medical Officer on 18.09.2008 stating that no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner was due to retire on 31.10.2008. At that point of time, 1st Respondent issued a charge memo on 30.9.2008 on the ground that the petitioner while he was working at District Siddha Hospital, Erode on 01.03.2006 did not report for night duty. The said proceedings has been challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that the said issue has already been closed and therefore, there cannot be a double jeopardy against the petitioner.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner has put in unblemished service. She has no prior antecedents during her service. IT is also not in dispute that an order came to be passed on 21.04.2006 against the very same charges that she was absent for the night duty on 01.03.2006. IT is also not in dispute the order passed on 21.04.2006 has not been quashed or set aside. Thereafter, the present impugned order, namely charge memo has been issued, at the instance of a person, who was her immediate superior namely Mr.T.Muthukrishnan. Even in the counter affidavit it is specifically stated that the charge memo has been issued at the instance of the said person. IT is also not in dispute that the complaint given by the said person has been closed "as a mistake of fact". Therefore, it is clear that the impugned charge memo has not been initiated by the first respondent on his own, but only at the instance of the said T. Muthukrishnan. Even though this Honourable Court shall not go into merits of the charges, in the peculiar circumstances, a mere reading of the said charge would show that it is a not very serious one, and probably that is the reason why the first respondent has not chosen to initiate action at the earlier point of time. IT has not been stated in the counter affidavit that the order passed by the District Siddha Medical Officer, Erode on 21.04.2006 has not been sent to the respondent herein and the same has been passed without the knowledge of the 1st Respondent. Moreover, it is to be seen in the present case, that the petitioner was allowed to continue to work under Siddha Department even after the first charge memo.