Madras High Court
L.Joy Muthamail vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 September, 2019
Bench: S.Manikumar, D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.2905 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.A.No.2905 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.18766 and 18767 of 2019
L.Joy Muthamail ... Appellant
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600009.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600010.
3.The Director,
Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine,
K.K.Nagar, Chennai - 600083.
4.Thiru.K.Ulaganathan,
Administrative Officer/Enquiry Officer,
O/o. Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600010. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against
the order made in W.P.No.29970 of 2018, dated 27.02.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/66
W.A.No.2905 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
for Mr.A.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram
Special Government Pleader.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Instant writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.29970 of 2018, dated 27.02.2019, by which, Writ Court declined to quash the Charge Memo, dated 28.06.2018.
2. Case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that she was working as Junior Administrative Officer in the office of Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation of Medicine, Chennai/the 3rd respondent herein. On the verge of her attaining superannuation on 30.06.2018, a charge memo was slapped at the eleventh hour on her.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.29970 of 2018. Adverting to the challenge on the charge memo, vide order dated 27.02.2019 in W.P.No.29970 of 2018, Writ Court ordered thus:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 "3. The allegations set out in the charge memo are certainly serious in nature, large number of employees had given complaint against the writ petitioner and those complaints are to be enquired into by conducting a detailed enquiry. This being the factum, the very charge memo cannot be squashed on the grounds raised in the present writ petition. The ground raised in the writ petition is that the charge memo do not contain the details and there is no specific incident or reference, in respect of incident. The charge memo is vague and not specific. Thus the same is liable to be scraped.
Though the charge memo narrates the allegation generally, more specifically regarding the behavior and the attitude of the writ petitioner towards subordinate officials in the office, the number of witnesses cited in the charge memo denotes that there are large number of complaints against the writ petitioner. The details of the complaints and the allegations need not be stated in the charge memo. For instance, the charge memo states that the writ petitioner has committed certain human rights violation, to substantiate the charge memo the documents are relied upon the witnesses, who are listed out for the purpose of examination. Therefore, those allegations in relation to the violation of human rights or abusing unparliamentary words against the subordinate officials can be established during the process of enquiry. Under these circumstances, the nature of the allegations set out in the charge memo do not warrant any further details as the charge memo contains the list of documents and list of witnesses to be examined. Thus the writ petitioner can avail the opportunity to be provided by the competent authority or at a time of conducting enquiry to prove his innocence or otherwise, by submitting the documents or by adducing evidences before the authorities.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
4. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the charge memo framed against the writ petitioner. A charge memo can be challenged on a limited ground and a judicial review against the charge memo is certainly limited. A charge memo can be challenged on limited grounds and the Court can entertain a writ petition on exceptional circumstances. A charge memo can be challenged, if the same was issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction, an allegation of mala fides is raised if the same is in violation of statutory rules. Even in case of raising the allegation of mala fides, the authority against whom such an allegation is raised, has to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings in his personal capacity. In the absence of any such legal grounds, no charge memo can be entertained by way of writ petition.
5. Intermittent intervention in the disciplinary proceedings is not preferable. However, only on exceptional circumstances, this Court can issue a direction against the proceedings and not in a routine manner. Mere issuance of a call letter to the writ petitioner directing him to participate in the domestic enquiry will not give any cause of action to move this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the writ petition is absolutely misconceived and the grounds raised in this writ petition cannot be considered.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Upendra Singh, reported in (1994) 3 SCC 357 held as follows:
"6. In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this http://www.judis.nic.in 4/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The function of the court/tribunal is one of judicial review, the parameters of which are repeatedly laid down by this Court. It would be sufficient to quote the decision in H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Kamal v. Gopi Nath & Sons. The Bench comprising M.N. Venkatachaliah,J. (as he then was) and A.M. Ahmadi, J., affirmed the principle thus : (SCC p. 317, para
8) "Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court.
Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself."
7.In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 565, the Apex Court of India held that normally, a Charge memo is not liable to be http://www.judis.nic.in 5/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 quashed as it does not adversely affect the rights of an employee and does not give rise to any cause of action. A writ lies only when some right of a party is infringed. The charge memo does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing punishment or otherwise, it may have a cause of action. Hence, writ petition challenging charge memo by itself is not maintainable. However, it can be quashed on the ground that issuing authority being not competent to issue the same.
8.In the case of Union of India and another vs. Kunishetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 58], it was held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not be ordinarily exercised by quashing a charge memo. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge memo if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
4. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal has been filed on the following grounds:-
(i) Writ Court has miserably failed to hold that the Charge Memo issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.49584/cmap2/2/2018, dated 28.06.2018 against the appellant, is per se illegal and unlawful.
(ii) Writ Court has miserably failed to note that the charges themselves are vague and without any material http://www.judis.nic.in 6/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 particulars, but issued with a malafide intention to harass the appellant /petitioner herein.
(iii) Writ Court has misconceived itself to hold that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be extended to quash the Charge Memo issued against the appellant/writ petitioner.
The jurisdiction of this Court is wide enough to strike out the illegality of the respondents. When the Charge Memo itself is vague, illegal and unlawful, then the judicial review under Article 226 cannot shut its door when the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is subjected to suffer the illegality on the face of an illegal Charge Memo.
(iv) Writ Court has miserably failed to consider that the G.O.MS.No.144 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 08.06.2007 was issued to curtail the practice of issuing a Charge Memo as against an employee at the fag end of his/her retirement from service.
(v) Writ Court has mistakenly held that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be interfered with despite the fact that it sought to proceed on the basis of vague and vexatious charges. Once the charges are found to be vague and vexatious, it goes without saying, that the delinquent is deprived of his fundamental rights from putting forth his/her effective defence to rebut the charges.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
(vi) Writ Court did not look into the violation by the authorities in following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.144 P & AR(N) Department dated 08.06.2007 and also G.O. Ms. No. 105, Home (General) Department dated 18.1.1989.
(vii) Writ Court has failed to advert to a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and various High Courts covering the case of the appellant/petitioner.
(viii) Decision of the Writ Court that details of the complaints and allegations need not be stated in the Charge Memo would amount to jeopardize the rights of the appellant from making an effective representation to deny the allegations. The other reasons given by the writ court are untenable. The appellant herein reserves her right to file additional grounds, as and when the circumstances warrant so."
5. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel made submissions on the above grounds. On the vagueness of the charges, he also referred to the charges. Reliance has also been made to the certificates given by the authorities stating that no disciplinary proceedings were pending as on 06.06.2018, and that just 2 days before the retirement i.e. on 28.06.2018, a charge memo has been served on the appellant http://www.judis.nic.in 8/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 and that she was not permitted to retire, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 08.06.2007.
6. We directed the learned Special Government Pleader, to produce the files.
7. G.O.Ms.No.144, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 08.06.2007, is extracted hereunder:-
Government of Tamil Nadu Abstract Avoiding suspension on the date of retirement – Not applicable to cases of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption enquiry and criminal cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department G.O. (Ms) No. 144 Dated : 08.06.2007 Read :
1. Lr. (Ms) No. 1118/Par N/89, dated 22.12.87
2. G.O. (Ms) No. 439, P&AR (Per N) Department, dated 27.7.1989
3. D.O. letter No. 44626/2004-1 P&AR(N) Department dated 3.8.2004 ORDER The Government have issued detailed instructions then and there to take expeditious action on the pending Disciplinary Proceedings within a specified time-limit in the letter first read above, so as to avoid delay in processing of disciplinary cases. Instructions have been issued in the DO Letter third read above to make a bimonthly review of all disciplinary cases pending at all levels including at the Government level to speed up the disciplinary cases.
The disciplinary action initiated against the Government servant should be http://www.judis.nic.in 9/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 completed and final orders issued within the time limit prescribed by the Government so as to ensure that there is no unwarranted delay in finalising the disciplinary proceedings.
2. Of late, it is noticed that in many of the disciplinary cases which are pending for quite a long time, the disciplinary authority considers the question of suspension and such suspension orders are issued by the competent authorities on the date of retirement of the Government servants which causes much hardship to them. This may, perhaps. due to the inability on the part of the disciplinary authorities concerned for not having finalised the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated time. If the cases are processed by the disciplinary proceedings within the time schedule prescribed by the Government, in the letter first read above the need for suspending the Government servants on their date of retirement would not at all arise and it can very well be avoided. In such a long pending cases, there may not be any justification to wait until the date of retirement of the Government servants on superannuation and then raise the question of suspension of the Government servant on the date of retirement. If the gravity of lapse committed by the Government servant concerned is so serious as to warrant any one of the major penalties, then the question of suspension can be examined well in advance before the date of retirement and a decision taken before 3 months instead of waiting till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation.
3. It may not be necessary to keep a retiring person under suspension just because there are some charges pending against him under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. In such cases, if the charges are not so grave and do not warrant any major punishment, the Government servant may be allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the case pending against him, since further action can be proceeded under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, as “Deemed Proceeding”. Such deemed proceedings in disciplinary cases are possible only if charges are framed under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, but not under Rule 17(a) of the said rules. The Government have got powers to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof from any Government Servant and also to withhold his Death- Cum-Retirement-Gratuity, if any, recovery is to be effected for the pecuniary loss causes to the Government by the retiring Government servant.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
4. After detailed examination, the Government have decided that, as a general principle, issue of suspension orders on the date of a Government servant should be avoided by examination of the case well in advance (i.e) 3 months prior to the date of retirement on superannuation of the Government servants concerned.
5. The Government direct that the following guidelines be followed to avoid suspension orders on the date of retirement of the Government servants in super session of orders issued in the reference second read above.
(i) The Disciplinary authority should not resort to last minute suspension of the Government servants (i.e) on the date of their retirement. A decision either to allow Government servant to retire from service or suspend him from service should be taken well in advance (i.e) three months prior to the date of retirement on superannuation and orders issued in the matter and such a decision should not be taken on the date of retirement, if final orders could not be issued in a pending disciplinary case against a Government servant retiring from service due to administrative grounds.
(ii) If an irregularity or an offence committed by the Government servant comes to notice within a period of three months prior to the date or retirement, the disciplinary authority shall process the case on war-footing and take a decision either to permit the Government servant to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary case pending against him or to place him under suspension, based on gravity of the irregularities committed by him.
(iii) In respect of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings cases, the disciplinary authorities should strictly adhere to the time limit prescribed by the Government. It is noticed that Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and Tribunal for disciplinary Proceedings cases are dragged on for a long time without adhering to the time limit prescribed by the Government in Letter first read above. In such cases, the disciplinary authorities should take up the matter with the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption or Tribunal for disciplinary Proceedings to expedite such cases and final orders issued within the time limit prescribed. In unavoidable circumstances, if final orders could not be issued, even in such cases, the disciplinary authorities should take a decision to place him under suspension well in advance (i.e) prior to the date of retirement of the http://www.judis.nic.in 11/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Government servants and not on the date of retirement.
(iv) Any failure on the part of the disciplinary authority to issue final orders three months before the date of retirement of a delinquent officer will be viewed seriously and it will entail severe action to be initiated against the officials responsible for dragging on the case to the date of retirement of Government Servant concerned.
(v) Where the delinquency committed by a Government servant is very grave which warrants imposition of major penalty such as dismissal or removal from service and if it is not possible to pass final orders in such departmental proceedings, then it is necessary to suspend the Government Servant from service and not to permit him to retire on attaining the age of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c). In such cases also, the disciplinary authorities have to ensure that the suspension orders are not issued on the date of retirement of the Government servants. However, where a Government servant is already under suspension, orders retaining the services of Government servant beyond the date of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (c) have to be issued on the date of retirement only.
(vi) In cases where charges have been framed and the disciplinary authority is of the view that a pension cut or withholding of pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 would suffice for the delinquency committed, the disciplinary authority may allow the Government servant to retire from service without prejudice to the departmental proceedings.
(vii) If the disciplinary authority comes to know of the commission of a delinquency which warrants imposition of major penalty such as dismissal or removal from service, within three months prior to the date or retirement of the Government Servant and charges could not be framed before the date of retirement of the Government servant, then also it is necessary to suspend the Government Servant from service and not to permit him to retire on attaining the age of superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(a) (c). In such cases also, the disciplinary authorities may ensure that the suspension orders are not issued on the date of retirement of the Government servant.
(viii) The above instructions shall not be made applicable to cases of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption enquiry and criminal cases."
8. On 26.04.2018, Office of the Accountant General (A&E) Tamil http://www.judis.nic.in 12/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Nadu, Chennai, has issued orders granting authorisation for payment of pensionary benefits to the appellant, as on the date of retirement.
On 16.05.2018, authorisation has been made by the said authority for payment of DCRG and other retirement benefits.
9. On 06.06.2018, Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai, has given No Objection for retirement, along with the service particulars. For brevity, the same is extracted hereunder:-
URGENT/THROUGH INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION From. To.
Dr.C.Ramesh Director of Medical Education,
MD,DNB,(PMR)D.Phys.Med,DA Kilapauk,
Director, Chennai-10
Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83 Na.Ka. No. 117/Ni/2018 dated 06.06.2018 Sir, Sub Administration-Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83. L.Joy Muthamil, working as Junior Administrative Officer in this Institute is going attain superannuation on 30.06.2018- submission of proposals and no objection certificate- request for order of retirement-reg Ref - 1. Letter of this office in Na.Ka No. 117/Ni/2018 dated 22.01.2018, 20.04.2018, 04.05.2018, 25.05.2018.
2. Letter of the Superintendent (G), Aringar Anna http://www.judis.nic.in 13/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Government Hospital of Indian Medicine, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106 in Na.Ka.No.348/Nil/18 dated 07.02.2018
3. Letter of Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10 in Na.Ka. No.4164/AaNa(3)/2018 dated 30.04.2018
4. Letter of Chief Doctor, Government Peripheral Hospital, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-78 in Na.Ka. No. 117/Ni/2018 dated 24.05.2018.
5. Sworn formats of the concerned individual dated 27.03.2018 ***** In the light of one Joy Muthamil working as Junior Administrative Officer in this Hospital from 15.05.2017 is going to attain superannuation, it was requested through the letter of this office in reference No.1 as to whether any disciplinary charges and dues to government and of audit objection are pending against the concerned individual for the past 10 years.
In the Letter of Superintendent (G), Aringar Anna Government Hospital of Indian Medicine, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106 as shown in reference No.2, it was certified that there was no pendency of disciplinary charges, no dues to the government and no dues on audit objection against the concerned individual. The said Letter is enclosed herewith.
As per the Letter of Director of Medical Education, Chennai- 10 as shown in the reference No-3, it is stated that there is no pendency of disciplinary action against the concerned individual by enclosing herewith non-official note of the Audit Report dated 04.04.2018 of Directorate of Medical Education.
In the Letter of Chief Doctor, Government Peripheral Hospital, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-78 as shown in reference No.4 it is stated that there is no pendency of disciplinary action, no dues to the government against the individual and it is hereby informed that Audit objection of Para No.3, 7 and 8 of the Audit Report of Directorate of Medical Education was pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 During her tenure in this Medical Institute, there is no disciplinary action and no dues to the government are pending against the concerned individual. Besides, the Audit Objection in Para No.7 and 9 of Directorate Medical Education was pending. The objection in Para No.9 was removed as per the Letter of Directorate of Medical Education in Na.Ka No.420/Audit-1/2017. Regarding the Audit Objection of Para No.7, after receiving proper explanation from the individual, it has been sent through the Letter of this Office in Na.Ka.No.117/Audit-l/2017 dated 28.05.2018 to the Directorate of Medical Education , Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
In the light of retirement of L.Joy Muthamil on 30.06.2018 on attaining superannuation, it is hereby sent the letters as shown in reference number 1 to 5, the sworn formats of the individual, service records and registered paper in original are hereby sent to your kind attention and consideration and for the order of retirement.
Director Enc:
As shown in page 1 onwards SERVICE PARTICULARS Name & Designation : L.Joymuthamil, Junior Administrative Officer Date of Birth : 17.06.1960 Date of Joining : 06.10.1983 F.N. Date of Regularization : 06.10.1983 F.N. Date of Completion or Probation : 23.10.1985 A.N. Record sheet http://www.judis.nic.in 15/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 If Punishme Date of Entry nt is awarded Punishment Name of the Institution Post Held authority if any No. & Date of From To Order issued Govt. General Hospital Telephone 06.10.83 08.08.89 NIL NIL Chennai-03 Operator Govt. General Hospital 09.08.89 19.06.96 Junior Assistant NIL NIL Chennai-03 Govt. Peripheral Hospital, K.K.Nagar, 20.06.96 13.02.98 Junior Assistant NIL NIL Chennai-78 Govt. Royapettah 13.02.98 05.06.98 Assistant NIL NIL Hospital, Ch-14.
Govt. Kilpauk Medical
05.06.98 03.06.99 Assistant NIL NIL College Hospital Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation 04.06.99 31.12.99 Assistant NIL NIL Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
Govt. Peripheral
Hospital, K.K. Nagar, 31.12.99 03.10.07 Assistant NIL NIL
Chennai - 78.
Govt. Institute of
Rehabilitation
03.10.07 16.05.11 Assistant NIL NIL
Medicine, K.K.Nagar,
Chennai-83.
Arignar Anna Govt.
Hospital of Indian Office
17.05.11 07.03.13 NIL NIL
Medicine, Arumbakkam Superintendent
Ch-106.
Director of Medical
Office
Education, Kilpauk, 08.03.13 02.09.13 NIL NIL
Superintendent
Chennai-10.
Govt. Peripheral
Office
Hospital, K.K.Nagar, 02.09.13 28.02.15 NIL NIL
Superintendent
Chennai - 78.
Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Disciplinary
Govt. Institute of and Appeal) Rules vide
Rehabilitation Office 17(b) charges framed
28.02.15 14.05.17
Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Superintendent and Further action
Chennai-83. dropped vide DME's
Proc.Ref.No.4086/SC/2
/2/15 Dt.24.05.2016
http://www.judis.nic.in
16/66
W.A.No.2905 of 2019
If
Punishme
Date of Entry nt is
awarded
Punishment
Name of the Institution Post Held authority
if any
No. &
Date of
From To Order
issued
Govt. Institute of
Junior
Rehabilitation
15.05.17 Till Date Administrative NIL NIL
Medicine, K.K.Nagar,
Officer
Chennai-83.
This is to certify that there is no Disciplinary Action pending/Contemplated against the individual.
DIRECTOR
10. Perusal of the material on record, shows that till 06.06.2018, there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellant. On 06.06.2018, Accountant General (A&E), has authorised disbursement of Provident Fund to the appellant on retirement on 30.06.2018.
11. While that be the position, on 28.06.2018, a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary Action and Appeal), Rules, has been issued by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai.
12. Charge Memo, dated 28.06.2018, reads thus:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 17/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Confidential/Through Individual Director of Medical Education Na.Ka.No.49584/CMB2/2/2018 Kilpauk, Chennai-10 Dated : 28/06/2018 CHARGE MEMO Sub : Public works-Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83-Government Employees- Engaged in Unmatchable/Unacceptable actions- Disciplinary actions taken under rule .17(b) of Tamil Nadu Public service (Disciplinary action and appeal)- charge memo- granted- Regarding.
1. The person who signed below was believed to taken investigation/inquiry against Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai, under the rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Public Service (Disciplinary action and appeal). The essence of charge that is, the details of investigation into charge of wrong behavior or misconduct is attached in annexure-1. The allegations are about wrong behavior and misconduct , the proof of the each allegations is attached in annexure-2 and A relevant documents that made the allegations stronger and the name & other details of the persons who will be investigated for accusing is attached respectively is in annexure 3 and 4. Any other documents required will be examined and investigated during the inquiry. The questionaire is attached to this.
You must complete the questionaire and send it back to the director office along with the signature and date.
2. Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai, is requested to file counter claim within 21 days from the date of receipt of the letter. And also requested to inform, whether oral enquiry or direct enquiry in the above two method. If the counter claim is not received within a fixed period of time, further http://www.judis.nic.in 18/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 action will be taken against that you have nothing to file.
3. You are informed that oral investigation will be conducted on such allegation that are not accepted by you and are orally certified and will be heard. So each allegation must be specifically accepted or rejected/denied.
4. More over your written counter claim to be submitted on the date mentioned in 2nd paragraph or before, or If you fail to made your appearance before the officer or if you fail in any other way, or else the process/procedure under the rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu public Service (disciplinary action and appeal) or if you fail to comply with orders, or orders issued by the aforementioned provision then the inquiry will be decide on your absence. It also infirmed that, Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, will be set Ex-parte.
5. Attention to Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, under the provision 18 of Tamil Nadu Government Employee Probation rule/Code of Conduct. Under this rule, any employee should not be able to bring or seek any evidence of a political or external influence by a higher official in order to benefit from his work under the government. In relation to any substance that is maintained in these proceedings, if she receives a prospective appeal, Tmt .L.Joy Muthamizh, work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, knew about such prospective appeal if it is confirmed /assumed that it was sent by her then the action will be taken against her for the violation of provision of Rule 18 of Tamil Nadu Government Employee Probation Act/Code of Conduct 1973.
6. Acknowledgment should be made once the memo received.
http://www.judis.nic.in 19/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 ENCLOSURES: QUESTIONAIRE Sd/-
Director of medical education To, Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83.
......through the Director of Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83.
Copy to The Director, Government institute of Rehabilitation medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
........ this charge memo was requested to deliver to individual and also get a signature with date in draft from her and requested to sent back to the office by today itself dated 29.06.2018
2. Director office administrative/ executive section.
3. balance file/spare Enclosure - 1 The charge made against you was based on the conduct or behavior of Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83.
Charge 1 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83. Being an officer, you have been indifferent to your colleagues, respected the fellow employees less, being very aggressive, Showed selfish discrimination and abusing misusing of power. Charge 2 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83. you have been mentally depress others by your contradictions and actions.
Charge 3 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government http://www.judis.nic.in 20/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83. You have sent a letter to the employee who has earned a paid leave and so you have intervened in individuals human rights of Government employers by such actions.
Charge 4 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83, you have been responsible for transferring employees who work well under the banner of your employee with the help of top officials and political influence.
Charge 5 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83, you do not have a smooth environment /relationship from your under employed employees you have prevented the government administration from working properly.
Charge 6 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83, You have been delayed to pay Retirement cash and other bene'flts for many of the hospital workers.
Charge 7 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83, You have discriminated the employees based on the caste and also you are deprived of employees by pointing out the profession.
Charge 8 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83, you break the government rules and permitted your husband in the office and you have allowed him to handle the work record of employees and you are responsible for threatening employees who work there.
Charge 9 : You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83, you have mentally distressed, stressful, mentally disturbed the others and also make them physically and mentally disturbed, stressful and Also make visitors to wait for long time and most importantly you kept differently-able people for long time.
Charge: You work as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83, for the above actions, you have violated the Rule - 10 of Tamil Nadu Government Employee http://www.judis.nic.in 21/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Probation Rule/Code of Conduct.
Sd/- 28.6.18 Director of Medical Education.
Enclosure - 2 Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83, Criticism report about the report about the allegations, such as misconduct or misbehavior against you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are working as a Junior Executive Officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, have been respected the fellow employees less, being very aggressive, showed selfish discrime and abusing/misusing of power and many have been mentally depressed the employees by your contradictions and actions.
Furthermore you have sent a letter to the employer who has earned a paid leave and so you have interested in individuals human rights of government employees by such actions. Because of your political influence you have been responsible for transferring employees who work well under the banner of your employee with the help of top officials.
Because you do not have a smooth environment /relationship from your under employed employees you have prevented the government administration from working properly.
You have been delayed to pay Retirement cash and other benefits for many of the hospital workers.
You have discriminated the employees based on the caste and also you are deprived of employees by pointing out the profession. By breaking the government rules you permitted your husband in the office and you have allowed him to handle the work record of employees and you are responsible for threatening employees who work there.
Because of your other employees have been mentally distressed, stressful, mentally disturbed and most importantly you kept differently-able people for long time and also make visitors to wait for long time.
Therefore disciplinary action is set against you.
Sd/- 28.6.18 DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION Enclosure - 3 Tmt.L.Joy muthamizh Junior Executive officer, Government institute of Rehabilitation medicine K.K.Nagar Chennai, A list of the documents considered to be strong for charge/Indictments:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 22/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
1. Undated complaint letter of Doctors and all employers, Government Institute of Rehabilitation medicine KK Nagar Chennai-83
2. Undated complaint letter of all employees, Government Institute of Rehabilitation medicine K.K Nagar Chennai-83
3. Complaint letter dated 16/02/2018 of Administrative Division Officers, Government Institute of Rehabilitation medicine K.K Nagar Chennai-83.
4. Complaint letter dated 27/02/2018 of Former Assistant Accountant, Government Institute of Rehabilitation medicine K.K.Nagar Chennai-83.
5. Investigation report dated 21.06.2018 of Mrs. S.Malaini, Nodal Officer, Director of Medical education, Chennai-10.
6. Investigation report dated 28.06.2018 of Mrs. S.Malaini, Nodal Officer, Director of Medical education, Chennai-10.
Director file No:81358/N2/2017, Current file pages 1 to 531 Sd/- 28.6.18 DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION Enclosure - 4 Tmt L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. K.K.Nagar, Chennai. A list of the name of person who will testify to the allegations imposed against the her:-
1) Mr.C.Ramesh Professor and Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai - 600 083
2) Tmt.Ra. Selvarani, Junior Executive officers, Former Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83, Now as Government kilpauk Medical college, Chennai-10
3) Thiru.R.Jayakumar, Superintendent officer, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai
-600 083.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
4) Tmt.Brinda, Superintendent officer, Former Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai- 83, Now as Government kilpauk Medical college, Chennai-10
5) Thiru J.Kumar, Skilled Assistant Grade-I, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
6) Tmt.V.Sivakumari, Physiotherapist level-2, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83.
7) Tmt.K.Senthivadivu, Physiotherapist Level-2, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
8) Vanathi, Physiotherapist level-2 , Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
9) A.B.Premnatha, Physiotherphasit level-2, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83.
10) Thiru V.M. Chidambaram, Assistant , Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83
11) Bharathi, Assistant, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83
12) Mr.D.Jeyakumar, Assistant professor, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83
13) Thiru S. Ravikumar, Pharmacist, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83
14) Thiru Rajan, Assistant, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-33
15) Tmt.K.Kulakodi, Assistant, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83
16) Premalatha, Assistant professor, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83
17) Thiru.S.Kumar, Physiotherapist, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83
18) Tmt.K.G.Shanthi, Physiotherapist, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83 http://www.judis.nic.in 24/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
19) Thiru V.Elmurugan, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K..Nagar, Chennai-83
20) Thiru.P.Kannan, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
21) Thiru.E.Ravisnaker, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83
22) Thiru. Rajkumar, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83.
23) Thiru. M. Raj esh Kannan, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83.
24) H.Jothilakshmi, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai- 83.
25) S.Thamizhvani, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-83.
26) G.Ezhil Gnasuriyan, Prosthetic Craftsman, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83.
27) J.Usharani, Prosthetic technician, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
28) G.S.Joseph, Prosthetic technician, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
29) V.Vikraman, Prosthetic technician level-2, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K Nagar, Chennai-83.
30) Y.A.William, Junior Assistant, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
31) Thiru.E.Nageswarao, male nurse assistant (retired), Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
32) Thiru.J.Kumar, former Assistant Accountant, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-83.
Sd/-28.6.18
DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
http://www.judis.nic.in
25/66
W.A.No.2905 of 2019
R.C.No.1192/N/2018 Dated: 20/08/2018
Charge Memo given/provided by Director of Medical
education vide Na.Ka.No.49584/C.M.B/2/2018 Dated 28/06/2018 (enclosures) Sd/-29.6.18 Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine K.K.Nagar, Chennai - 600 083.
To Tmt.L.Joy Muthamizh, Junior Executive Officer, Government institute of rehabilitation medicine K.K.Nagar, Chennai - 600083.
Received by L.Joy Muthamizh on 29.06.2018 3.30. P.M.
13. On 29.06.2018, another order has been issued by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, permitting her to retire from government service, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings.
14. Enquiry Notice dated 04.10.2018, has been issued fixing the enquiry on 16.10.2018. Writ petitioner/Appellant has filed W.P.No.29970 of 2018, challenging the charge memo, which has been dismissed on 27.02.2019, and hence the instant writ appeal.
15. Perusal of the files produced by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, discloses that based on a undated complaint of staff numbering seven working in Government Rehabilitation Centre, http://www.judis.nic.in 26/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Chennai, sent to the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Cell and another unsigned letter claimed to be sent by all the staff in Government Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, the Additional Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, has forwarded the complaint to the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, to enquire into the complaint.
16. Letter dated 10.10.2017, reads thus:-
kf;fs; ey;thH;t[ kw;Wk; FLk;g eyj;(VV2) Jiw foj vz;/34805-VV2-2016?8. ehs; 10/10/2017 ntwtpsk;gp. g[ul;lhrp ? 24. jpUts;Sth; Mz;L ? 2048 mDg;g[eh;
jpU/c/md;g[. vk;/V/.
muR TLjy; brayhsh;/ bgWeh;
kUj;Jt fy;tp ,af;Feh;.
brd;id?600 010 (,) ma;ah.
bghUs;? g[fhh; ? brd;id nf/nf/efh; muR g[wefh;
kUj;Jtkidapy; gzpg[hpa[k; jpUkjp/$ha;Kj;jkpH;. mYtyf fz;fhzpg;ghsh; kw;Wk; jpU/utPe;jh; kUj;Jt mYtyh; mth;fs; kPJ mspf;fg;gl;l g[fhh; ? bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it 1/ j';fsJ foj e/f/vz;/23349-ep2-2-2015.
ehs;/15/09/2015/ 2/ muR foj vz;/34805-VV2-2016. ehs;/18/10/2016/ 3/ j';fsJ foj e/f/vz;/28849-ep2-2-2015.
ehs;/18/18/2017/ 4/ nf/nf/efh; muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiya CHpah;fsplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;l ehsplg;glhj fojk;/ ????????
ghh;it 1y; fhQqk; fojj;jpd; kPJ j';fspd; ftdj;jpw;F <h;g;gJld; http://www.judis.nic.in 27/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 mf;fojj;jpy; brd;id nf/nf/efh; muR g[wefh; kUj;Jtkidapy;. mYtyf fz;fhzpg;ghsuhfg; gzpg[hpa[k; jpUkjp/$ha;Kj;jkpH;. kw;Wk; kUj;Jt mYtyh; jpU/utPe;jh; mth;fs; kPJ mspf;fg;gl;l g[fhh; kD kPJ Kiwahd tprhuiz mwpf;if bgwg;glhj fhuzj;jpdhy;. ghh;it 2y; fhQqk; muR fojj;jpy;. mg;g[fhh; kDtpy; Twg;gl;Ls;s midj;J Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;Fk;. g[fhh;jhuh;fs; Kd;dpiyapy; Kiwahd tprhuizapid jdpah;fsplk; nkw;bfhz;L. mt;twpf;ifapid muRf;F mDg;gp itf;FkhW j';fSf;F mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;lJ/ 2/ ghh;it 3y; fhQqk; j';fspd; fojj;jpy;. ,g;g[fhh; kD kPJ tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;ljhft[k;. mtw;wpy; mYtyf fz;fhzpg;ghsh; kPJ Twg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lfs; epU:gzk; Mftpy;iy vd;Wk;. mt;tprhuizapd; mog;gilapy;. mg;g[fhh; kDtpy; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sthW. g[fhh;jhuuhd jpU/ehnfc&;tuuht; mth;fSf;Fk;/ mk;kUj;Jtkid CHpah;fSf;Fk; epYitapypUe;J epYitj; bjhiffs; rhpbra;J tH';fg;gl;Ltpl;ljhft[k; mjd; fhuzkhf ,g;g[fhh; kD kPJ nky;eltof;ifapid iftpLkhW tprhuiz mYtyh; bjhptpj;Js;sjhfj; bjhptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ 3/ nkYk;. ghh;it 4y; fhQqk; fojj;jpd; efypid ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;g[tJld;. ,g;g[fhh; kDtpy;. ghh;it 1?y; fhQqk; muR fojj;jpy; mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;lthW Kiwahf tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;sg;glhkYk;. mf;fojj;jpy; nfhug;gl;l TLjy; tptu';fnsh. muRf;F mDg;gg;glhkYk;. mk;kD kPJ nky; eltof;ifapidf; iftplf;nfhUtJ. jdpaUf;Fr; rhjfkhf jpUj;jpa tprhuiz mwpf;if cs;sij mwpa KofpwJ/ nkYk;. jdpah; jpUkjp/$ha;Kj;jkpH;. mYtyf fz;fhzpg;ghsh; mth;fs; kPJ g[fhh;fs; nkd;nkYk; te;j tz;znk cs;sJ jtpu Mdhy; mth; kPJ chpa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L tprhuiz mwpf;if kl;Lk; murstpy; bgwg;glhky; c;ssJ/ 4/ nkw;fhQqk; N:H;epiyapy;. brd;id nf/nf/efh; muR g[wefh; kUj;Jtkidapy;. gzpg[hpa[k; jpUkjp/$ha;Kj;jkpH;. mYtyf fz;fhzpg;ghsh; kw;Wk; jpU/utPe;jh;. kUj;Jt mYtyh; mth;fs; kPJ mspf;fg;gl;l midj;J g[fhh; kDf;fSf;Fk;. me;je;j g[fhh;jhuh;fs; Kd;dpiyapy;. mjhtJ jpU/ehnfc&;tuuht;. 15/08/2017 ehsplg;gl;l kUj;Jtkid CHpah;fsplkpUe;J bgwg;gl;l fojj;jpy; cs;sth;fspd; Kd;dpiyapy;. ntW xU tprhuiz mYtyiu epakdk; bra;J. mg;g[fhh; kDf;fspy; Twg;gl;Ls;s midj;J Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;Fk;. chpa tprhuiz nkw;bfhz;L. tprhuiz mwpf;ifapid ghh;it 1?y; fhQqk; muR fojj;jpy; nfhug;gl;l TLjy; tptu';fSld; mspf;FkhW j';fisf; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg; gzpf;fg;gl;Ls;nsd;/ nkYk;. ,k;Kiw. Kiwahd tprhuiz mwpf;ifapid. muRf;F mDg;gj; jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; bjhlh;g[ila mYtyh;fs; kPJ chpa XG';F eltof;if vLf;fg;gLk; vd;gija[k; j';fSf;F bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg; gzpf;fg;gl;Ls;nsd;/ http://www.judis.nic.in 28/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 j';fs; cz;ika[s;s.
muR TLjy; brayhsUf;fhf/
17. Director of Medical Education, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, inturn has requested the Director of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the former, so as to forward the same to the government.
18. Thereafter, a notice dated 03.11.2017 has been issued to all the staff in Government Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, including the appellant, for an enquiry into the allegations of the staff. Notice dated 03.11.2017, issued by the Director, Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai to all the staff and the appellant, reads thus:-
e/f/vz;/4207-ep-2017 muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;. nf/nf/efh;.
brd;id?83
ehs; /11/2017
bghUs;: eph;thfk; ? muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;. nf/nf/efh;.
brd;id?83?,k;kUj;Jt epiyaj;jpy; bgwg;gl;Ls;s g[fhh; fojk; bjhlh;ghf tprhuiz nkw;bfhs;s nehpy; tUif ju miHj;jy; ? bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it: kUj;Jtf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; foj e/f/vz;/81358-ep2-2- 2017 ehs;/26/10/2017 (k) e/f/vz;/78221-MF(1)-2017 ehs;/17/10/2017/ ghh;itapy; fhQqk; foj';fspd;go. ,k;kUj;Jt epiyaj;jpy; bgwg;gl;Ls;s g[fhh; fojk; bjhlh;ghd tprhuiz. ,af;Feh; Kd;dpiyapy; 6/11/2017 md;W fhiy 11 kzp neuo tprhuiz eilbgw ,Ug;gjhy; g[fhh; bjhlh;ghd chpa Mtz';fSld; tprhuizf;F tUif jUkhW Kfthpapy;
http://www.judis.nic.in 29/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Fwpg;gpl;l gzpahsh;fs; nfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;/ ,af;Feh;
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;
brd;id bgWeh;.
,sepiy eph;thf mYtyh;.
jpU/uh$d; ? cjtpahsh;.
jpU/n$hrg; ? PT Gr II jpU/tpy;ypak; ? ,sepiy cjtpahsh;
jpU/tpf;ukd; ? PT Gr II jpU/Fkhh; ? Skilled Asst.
midj;J kUj;Jt mYtyh;fs;/ midj;J brtpypa fz;fhzpg;ghsh;fs;
midj;J ,ad;Kiw rpfpr;irahsh;fs;
midj;J eph;thf gzpahsh;fs;
midj;J kUe;jhSeh;fs;
midj;J braw;if mYtyg; gzpahsh;fs;
midj;J mog;gil gzpahsh;fs;/
19. Enquiry has been conducted in the Chambers of the Director of Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, from 06.11.2017, staff and the appellant have been given their statements as hereunder:-
(i) ,af;Fehpd; Kd;dpiyapy; 06/11/2017 md;W ,af;Fehpd; miwapy;
tprhuiz eilbgWfpwJ/ bgah; : jpU/tpf;ukd;/ gjtp : Prosthetic Technician Gr.II epiyaj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk;
Mz;Lfs; : 20 Mz;Lfs; gzpneuk; : 7/30 to 1/30 gzpg[hpa[k; ,lk; : ALC ,sepiy epht ; hf mYtyh; kPJ http://www.judis.nic.in 30/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 g[fhh; VJk; mspj;Js;sPuh : ,y;iy
Mk;. vdpy; vJFwpj;J. ,epm kPJ g[fhh; Fwpj;j tpsf;fk; vd;d?
mDg;g[eh;
nt/tpf;fpukd;.
m/g[/k/ epiyak;.
nf/nf/efh;.
brd;id ? 83/ bgWeh;
,af;Feh; mth;fs;.
m/g[/k/ epiyak;.
nf/nf/efh;.
brd;id ? 83/ Iah.
ehd; ,sepiy eph;thf mYtyh; kPJ ve;j g[fhh; fojKk; mDg;gtpy;iy vd ,jd; K:yk; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ nkYk;. Engineer?,y; vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gl;l g[fhh; fojj;jpy; cs;s ifbaGj;J vd;DilaJ ,y;iybadt[k; jhH;ika[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ed;wp j';fs; cz;ika[s;s/
(ii) ,af;Fehpd; Kd;dpiyapy; 06/11/2017 md;W ,af;Fehpd; miwapy;
tprhuiz eilbgWfpwJ/
bgah; : jpU/n$hrg;
gjtp : Prosthetic Technician Gr.II
epiyaj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk;
Mz;Lfs; : 1991 ? ypUe;J
gzpneuk; : 7/30 to 1/30
gzpg[hpa[k; ,lk; : ALC
,sepiy epht
; hf mYtyh; kPJ
g[fhh; VJk; mspj;Js;sPuh? : ,y;iy
Mk;. vdpy; vJFwpj;J. ,epm kPJ g[fhh; Fwpj;j tpsf;fk; vd;d?
http://www.judis.nic.in 31/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 mDg;g[eh;
G.S. n$hrg;
P.T. - II br/m/ epiyak;.
m/g[/k/ ikak;.
brd;id ? 83/ bgWeh;
,af;Feh; mth;fs;.
m/g[/k/ ikak;.
nf/nf/efh;.
brd;id ? 83/ Iah.
ehd; ,sepiy eph;thf mYtyh; kPJ ve;j g[fhh; fojKk; mDg;gtpy;iy vd ,jd; K:yk; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ nkYk;. g[fhh; fojj;jpYs;s ifbaGj;Jk; vd;DilaJ ,y;iy vd bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ kpf;f ed;wp j';fs; cz;ika[s;s/ G.S.n$hrg;
(iii) ,af;Fehpd; Kd;dpiyapy; 06/11/2017 md;W ,af;Fehpd; miwapy;
tprhuiz eilbgWfpwJ/
bgah; : jpU/G.Fkhh;
gjtp : Skilled Asst.
epiyaj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk;
Mz;Lfs; : 29 Mz;Lfs;
gzpneuk; : 8/00 to 3/00 pm
gzpg[hpa[k; ,lk; : Electrical gphpt[
,sepiy epht
; hf mYtyh; kPJ
g[fhh; VJk; mspj;Js;sPuh? : ,y;iy
Mk;. vdpy; vJFwpj;J. ,epm kPJ g[fhh; Fwpj;j tpsf;fk; vd;d?
http://www.judis.nic.in 32/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 mDg;g[eh;
nfh/Fkhh;
jpwd;kpF cjtpahsh; epiy ? I muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id?83/ bgWeh;
,af;Feh; mth;fs;.
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;.
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id ? 83/ Iah.
ehd; epiyaj;jiyth; kPnjh. ,sepiy eph;thf mYtyh; kPnjh vg;nghJk; jtwhf epidj;jJk; ,y;iy ahhplKk; jtwhf ngrpaJkpy;iy. ahhplKk; g[fhUk; bfhLj;jjpy;iy/ nkYk; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLj;jjhf VnjDk; fojj;jpy; vd; ifbahg;gk; ,Ue;jhy; mJ nghypahdnj vd;gjid gzptd;g[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ed;wpa[ld;
j';fs; cz;ika[s;s/ nfh/Fkhh;
(iv) ,af;Fehpd; Kd;dpiyapy; 06/11/2017 md;W ,af;Fehpd; miwapy;
tprhuiz eilbgWfpwJ/
bgah; : jpU/Y.A.tpy;ypak;
gjtp : ,sepiy cjtpahsh;
epiyaj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk;
Mz;Lfs; : 15 Mz;Lfs;
gzpneuk; : 10/30 to 5/00 pm
gzpg[hpa[k; ,lk; : Office
,sepiy epht
; hf mYtyh; kPJ
g[fhh; VJk; mspj;Js;sPuh? : ,y;iy
Mk;. vdpy; vJFwpj;J. ,epm kPJ g[fhh; Fwpj;j tpsf;fk; vd;d?
mDg;g[eh;
jpU/Y.A.tpy;ypak;
http://www.judis.nic.in 33/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 ,sepiy cjtpahsh;
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jtkid nf/nf/efh;. brd;id?83/ bgWeh;
,af;Feh; mth;fs;.
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jtkid.
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id ? 83/ Iah.
ehd; epiyaj;jiyth; kPnjh. ,sepiy epht ; hf mYtyh; kPnjh ehd; vg;nghJk; jtwhf epidj;jJk; ,y;iy ahhplKk; jtwhf ngrpaJkpy;iy. ahhplKk; g[fhUk; bfhLj;jjpy;iy/ nkYk; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLj;jjhf VnjDk; fojj;jpy; vd; ifbahg;gk; ,Ue;jhy; mJ nghypahdnj vd;gjid gzptd;g[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ed;wpa[ld;
ehs;?06/11/2017 j';fs; cz;ika[s;s/
,lk;?brd;id
(v) ,af;Fehpd; Kd;dpiyapy; 07/11/2017 md;W ,af;Fehpd; miwapy;
tprhuiz eilbgw;wJ/
bgah; : jpU/K.uh$d;;
gjtp : cjtpahsh;
epiyaj;jpy; gzpg[hpe;JtUk;
Mz;Lfs; : 7 Mz;Lfs;
gzpneuk; : 10/30 to 5/30 pm
gzp ,lk; : Store
,sepiy epht
; hf mYtyh; kPJ
g[fhh; VJk; mspj;Js;sPuh? : ,y;iy
Mk;. vdpy; mjw;fhd tpsf;fk;:
mDg;g[eh;
jpU/K.uh$d;;
cjtpahsh;
http://www.judis.nic.in
34/66
W.A.No.2905 of 2019
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jtkid
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id?83/
bgWeh;
,af;Feh; mth;fs;.
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt kid.
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id ? 83/
Iah.
ehd; epiyaj;jiyth; kPnjh. ,sepiy epht ; hf mYtyh; kPnjh ehd; vg;nghJk; jtwhf epidj;jJk; ,y;iy ahhplKk; jtwhf ngrpaJkpy;iy. ahhplKk; g[fhUk; bfhLj;jjpy;iy/ nkYk; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLj;jjhf VnjDk; fojj;jpy; vd; ifbahg;gk; ,Ue;jhy; mJ nghypahdnj vd;gjid gzptd;g[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ed;wpa[ld;
j';fs; cz;ika[s;s/
ehs; : 7.11.17
,lk; : Chennai
20. After conducting an enquiry into the allegations, vide letter in R.C.No.4207A/Ni/2017, dated 09.11.2017, the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, has categorically stated that there is no truth in the complaint of the staff. Along with the report, he has sent all the documents, statements of the staff recorded in the enquiry and the file contains 74 pages.
21. Letter dated 09.11.2017 of the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai, sent to the Director of http://www.judis.nic.in 35/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Medical Education, Chennai, reads thus:-
e/f/vz;/4207A-ep-2017 ehs;/9/11/2017 ma;ah.
bghUs;;: eph;thfk; ? muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;.
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id ? 83 ,k;kUj;Jt epiyaj;jpd; ,sepiy eph;thf mYtyh; kPJ kUj;Jt CHpah;fs; bfhLj;j g[fhh; kDtpw;F tprhuiz mwpf;if ?
rkh;g;gpj;jy; ? bjhlh;ghf/ ghh;it;: kUj;Jtf; fy;tp ,af;Fehpd; foj e/f/vz;/81358- ep2-2-2017 ehs;/26/10/17 kw;Wk; e/f/vz;/78221- MF(1)-2017 ehs;/17/10/2017/ ghh;itapy; fhQqk; foj';fspd;go. ,e;epiyaj;jpy; ,sepiy eph;thf mYtyuhf gzpg[hpa[k; jpUkjp/vy;/$ha;Kj;jkpH; mth;fs; kPJ kUj;Jtkid CHpah;fs; bfhLj;Js;s g[fhh; Fwpj;J tprhuiz elj;jg;gl;lJ/ nkw;go g[fhh; kDtpy; Twg;gl;l g[fhh;fs; cz;ikf;F g[wk;ghf cs;sJ vd bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ nkYk; mg;g[fhh; kDtpy; Twg;gl;lJ VJk; cz;ikapy;iy vd bjhptpg;gJld; tprhuiz Mtz';fspd; xsp efy;fs; j';fspd; ghh;itf;fhf ,j;Jld; ,izj;jDg;gg;gLfpwJ vd;gij fdpt[ld; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,af;Feh;
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;
brd;id
22. Holding that there is no truth in the complaints, the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai, vide letter dated 26.12.2017, has sent a report to the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, which has been forwarded to the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai. Said report has been acknowledged by the Additional http://www.judis.nic.in 36/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, in 2017.
23. Subsequently, one Mr.G.Kumar, seemed to have made a E-
mail complaint, dated 21.02.2018 to the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai. He has also sent a letter dated 16.02.2018. to the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai, alleging malpractices, irregularities, fraudulent and corrupted activities, against the appellant. Said complaint made to the Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai, has been forwarded to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai.
24. E-mail Complaint dated 21.02.2018, reads thus:-
Respected Sirs, I am G.Kumar, and I submit to state that I joined in the Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600083 (comes under the control of Director of Medical Education) as Assistant Accounts Officer on 24/7/2017 on deputation from Treasuries and Accounts Department. I noticed from the first day itself that the Director of Govt. Institute and Rehabilitation Medicine http://www.judis.nic.in 37/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Dr.C.Ramesh and Junior Administrative Officer/Drawing and Disbursing Officer Tmt.Joy Muthamizh did not follow any rules, regulations, orders issued by the Govt. of Tamilnadu. Moreover, I observed many discrepancies, irregularities, corrupted related issues in each and every wing of the Institute. Both the Director and JAO/DDO were demanding bribe for each and everything from the staff and even from the poor differently abled patients also. If bribe was not given by the staff and patients, the Director and JAO/DDO would not sign any paper by adopting delaying tactics. I vehemently opposed all these illegal and corrupted activities.
Meanwhile I was transferred and relieved from the Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine and relieved on 30/11/2017 AN. That day itself both the Director and JAO/DDO warned/threatened me that they suffered heavy loss due to me and would not send my Last Pay Certificate and Service Register to the concerned office in time and they demanded bribe to send the same. Till date they have not sent my last pay certificate to my present office, i.e., Tamilnadu Police Housing Corporation, Chennai 600010.
In this regard I have sent many complaints to the Directorate of Medical Education but no action has been taken. Moreover since December 2017 I have not been paid my salary due to the activities of Dr.C.Ramesh, http://www.judis.nic.in 38/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Director and Tmt.Joy Muthamizh, JAO/DDO of Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine.
I am very much struggling to meet out my daily expenditure and to buy medicines, hospital related expenses of my aged parent. Hence I humbly request you to take severe and necessary action against both of them and please take immediate steps to forward my LPC and SR to my present office.
I am always ready to appear for any inquiry in this issue Sirs.
Yours sincerely, G.KUMAR.
25. There is yet another complaint dated 14.05.2018, made by Mr.G.Kumar, to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, stating that his Service Register has not been forwarded to his present station by Dr.C.Ramesh, Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, and the Junior Administrative Officer Tmt.Joy Muthamizh of the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, his earned leave and surrender leave, have to be regularised, and therefore sought for necessary action.
http://www.judis.nic.in 39/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
26. Letter dated 14.05.2018 of Mr.G.Kumar, is extracted hereunder:-
From G.Kumar, 14.05.2018 (Formarly Assistant Accounts Officer, Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine) New No.11, Sarguna Pandyan Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094.
To Dr.J.Radhakrishnan, IAS Principal Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
Respected Sir, Sub: Abnormal delay in drawing salary, sending LPC - SR not received - necessary action requested against JAO/DDO Tmt.Joy Muthamizh of Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai - reg.
Ref: Many complaints sent to the Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai 600010.
----------
I submit to state that I joined in the Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai 600083 as Assistant Accounts Officer on 27/07/2017 on deputation from Treasuries and Accounts Department. I noticed from the first day itself that the Director Dr.C.Ramesh and the Junior Administrative Officer Tmt.Joy Muthamizh did not follow any rules, regulations, orders issued by the Govt. of Tamilnadu. Moreover I observed may discrepancies, irregularities, corrupted related issues in each and every wing of the GIRM. I opposed all the illegal and corrupted activities committed by them.
http://www.judis.nic.in 40/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Because of that, my salary was drawn only on 15.09.2017 by the Junior Administrative Officer Tmt.Joy Muthamizh eventhough my Last Pay Certificate was received by her on 08.08.2017. Meanwhile I was transferred from the Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine and posted in Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, Chennai. I was relieved on 30/11/2017 AN by the administration of Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai. The Last Pay Certificate and Service Register of mine have not been forwarded by the JAO/Drawing and Disbursing Officer Tmt.Joy Muthamizh till March 2018, to my new office, i.e., Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, Chennai. After I made a complaint to you Sir, my Last Pay Certificate was received on 05.03.2018 and salary was drawn in my new station on 16.03.2018.
Till date the Service Register of mine has not been forwarded to my present station by the JAO/Drawing and Disbursing Officer Tmt.Joy Muthamizh, Govt. Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai.
Hence, I humbly request you to take necessary action against the Junior Administrative Officer / Drawing and Disbursing Officer Tmt.Joy Muthamizh for the following dereliction of duties:-
1) I joined in GIRM on 24.07.2017 and my LPC received by the JAO/DDO of GIRM on 8.8.2017. My salary was drawn by JAO/DDO of GIRM belatedly on 15.09.2017.
2) Though I was relieved from GIRM on 30.11.2017, the LPC of mine was sent by the JAO/DDO of GIRM on 05.03.2018 and my salary was drawn on 16.03.2018.
3) I was relieved from GIRM on 30.11.2017, but my Services Register has not been forwarded by the JAO/DDO of GIRM till date."
27. After five months from the date of receipt of the report, referring to the letter of Mr.G.Kumar, (E-mail dated 21.02.2018), wherein he has made vague allegations of violation of rules, http://www.judis.nic.in 41/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 regulations, and the complaint dated 14.05.2018, wherein he has stated that his service register, has not been sent to the transferred station, Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, in his letter dated 24.05.2018, has requested the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, to examine Mr.G.Kumar and others, related staff, in the presence of the appellant and to submit a report before 12.06.2018 to the Government.
28. While doing so, the Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, has also posed a question to the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, as to whether Thiru.Nageshwara Rao, State Administrative Secretary of the Medical Department Staff Association, Tamil Nadu, has been examined or not.
If not, enquiry to be conducted, in his presence also.
29. As stated supra, a detailed enquiry has been conducted by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, and that all the administrative staff, have been examined, in his Chamber. All of them have said that they have not made any complaint against the appellant and some of them even http://www.judis.nic.in 42/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 denied, the signature in the undated complaint, said to have been sent on behalf of the staff association.
30. Directed of Medical Education, Chennai, has appointed a Nodal Officer to enquire. After going through the statement, Dr.C.Ramesh, Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, and others, within 6 days from the letter of the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, dated 06.06.2018, wherein he has stated that no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the appellant, Nodal officer appointed by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, has submitted a detailed report on 12.06.2018, holding that there is truth in the complaints made by the staff of Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai.
31. Perusal of the files submitted by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, does not indicate, as to whether Mr.Nageshwara Rao, has made any petition to the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, or to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai. There is no reason as to why the http://www.judis.nic.in 43/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, has directed that he should be enquired.
32. Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, has not found fault with the enquiry conducted by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, into the allegations made against the appellant, but he has taken note of fresh complaint of Mr.G.Kumar. There is no reason as to why the enquiry report submitted by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, has been ignored by the government and why there should be a successive enquiry into the general allegations, when Mr.G.Kumar, has made complaints, dated 21.02.2018 and 14.05.2018, respectively.
33. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the very same Mr.G.Kumar, has been examined by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, on 06.11.2017, and at the risk of repetition, what he has stated is reproduced:-
mDg;g[eh;
http://www.judis.nic.in 44/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 nfh/Fkhh;
jpwd;kpF cjtpahsh; epiy I muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id?83/ bgWeh;
,af;Feh; mth;fs;.
muR g[dh;thH;t[ kUj;Jt epiyak;.
nf/nf/efh;. brd;id?83/ Iah.
ehd; epiyaj;jiyth; kPnjh. ,sepiy epht; hf mYtyh; kPnjh vg;nghJk; jtwhf epidj;jJk; ,y;iy ahhplKk; jtwhf ngrpaJkpy;iy ahhplKk; g[fhUk; bfhLj;jjpy;iy nkYk; ehd; g[fhh; bfhLj;jjhf VnjDk; fojj;jpy; vd; ifbahg;gk; ,Ue;jhy; mJ nghypahdnj vd;gjid gzptd;g[ld; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ed;wpa[ld;
j';fs; cz;ika[s;s.
nfh/Fkhh;/
34. Even assuming that, Mr.G.Kumar, had a individual cause or grievance, that his service register, was not sent immediately to the station to which he was transferred, there is no reason as to why the Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, has directed all other related staff, should be examined in the presence of the Junior Administrative Officer.
35. It is well known that in a preliminary enquiry, to ascertain the prima facie of any allegation, the complainant or witnesses are not examined in the presence of the alleged violator and that such a http://www.judis.nic.in 45/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 procedure is contemplated, only if regular enquiry is ordered, under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal), Rules.
Procedure of examining the witnesses/complainant in the presence of a alleged violator, at the time of preliminary enquiry, is wholly erroneous.
36. Method adopted by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, ordering enquiry of Mr.G.Kumar, with other related staff, amounts to a second enquiry in respect the general allegations, said to have been made by the administrative staff, in the unsigned complaint and undated complaint.
37. At the risk of repetition, it is to be noted that all the staff examined by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, on 06.11.2017, have categorically denied of making any complaint against the Junior Administrative Officer.
38. Perusal of the files, shows that Mr.G.Kumar, has made an allegation of corruption, even against the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, K.K.Nagar, Chennai. Subsequently, http://www.judis.nic.in 46/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 the Last Pay Certificate of Mr.G.Kumar, has been sent by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai, to the station to which he was transferred i.e., Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation, Chennai on 05.03.2018 and that he has drawn his salary on 16.03.2018, for which he has also sent a letter dated 04.04.2018 to the Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai. Issue relating to the delay in sending the Last Pay Certificate and Service Register, is over as on 16.03.2018 itself.
Thus, the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Cehnnai, inhis letter dated, 06.06.2018 has given "No Objection Certificate", stating that no disciplinary action was pending against the appellant.
39. Normally, when allegations of malpractices, irregularities, fraudulent and corrupted activities, are levelled against an officer, enquiry would be conducted by the Head of the Unit or any competent authority appointed by him, where the alleged violator is serving and in the case on hand, such enquiry has already been conducted by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chennai, and he has found that there was no truth in the allegations. If the Additional Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare http://www.judis.nic.in 47/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Department, Chennai, was of the view that, complaints dated 21.02.2018 and 14.05.2018 respectively of Mr.G.Kumar, required enquiry, the same ought to have been done, separately and we reiterated that it is not correct to start a second or successive enquiry, to arrive at the desired result, i.e., to take disciplinary action against an officer, in the case on hand, the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of the case, ordering a second enquiry on general allegations, and procedure adopted by the respondents, cannot be approved.
40. Added further, charges framed are general in nature and vague. In a departmental proceedings, natural justice demands that any decision should be based on some probative value. After considering the statements of the administrative staff, Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, has arrived at a conclusion that their statements do not have any probative value.
Trite law to state that natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and to secure fair play.
41. On the facts and circumstances of this case, when the http://www.judis.nic.in 48/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Director of Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, after conducting an enquiry, has categorically reported that there is no truth in the complaints, and vide letter dated 06.06.2018, authorised disbursement of all benefits to the appellant, within six days, the Nodal officer, appointed by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, has recorded a contra finding. Neither the Director of Medical Education, Chennai, nor the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare, Chennai, has said that the finding arrived at by the Director, Government Institute of Rehabilitation Centre, Chennai, in 2017, is wrong, by giving reasons.
42. On the aspect of arbitrariness, fair play and fairness in action, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions,
(i) In Management of M/s.M.S.Nally Bharat Engineering Co.
Ltd., v. State of Bihar reported in 1990 (2) SCC 48, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20, held as follows:
"12. After the leading English case of Ridge v. Baldwin [1964 http://www.judis.nic.in 49/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66] and an equally important case of this Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : (1970) 1 SCR 457] there was a turning point in the development of doctrine of natural justice as applicable to administrative bodies. Both the authorities laid down that for application of rules of natural justice the classification of functions as ‘judicial’ or ‘administrative’ is not necessary. Lord Reid in Ridge case [1964 AC 40 : (1963) 2 All ER 66] explained: ‘that the duty to act judicially may arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed and it need not be shown to be superadded’. Hegde, J., in Kraipak case [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : (1970) 1 SCR 457] said that under our Constitution the rule of law pervades over the entire field of administration. Every organ of the State under our Constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. The concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedures which are considered inherent in the exercise of a judicial power are merely those which facilitate if not ensure a just and fair decision.
13. What is thus important in the modern administration is the fairness of procedure with elimination of element of arbitrariness. The State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. That is, however, not the same thing to state that they must act judicially or quasi-judicially. In Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1973) 1 SCC 380 : (1973) 3 SCR 22] Mukherjea, J. said (SCC p. 387, para 8: SCR p. 30) “The administrative authority concerned should act fairly, impartially and reasonably. Where administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly. http://www.judis.nic.in 50/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
15. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405, 434 : (1978) 2 SCR 272] Krishna Iyer, J. commented that natural justice though varying is the soul of the rule as fair play in action. It extends to both the fields of judicial and administrative. The administrative power in a democratic set up is not allergic to fairness in action and discretionary executive justice cannot degenerate into unilateral injustice. Good administration demands fair play in action and this simple desideratum is the fount of natural justice. Fairness is flexible and it is intended for improving the quality of government by injecting fair play into its wheels.
17. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 664 : (1981) 2 SCR 533] Sarkaria, J., speaking for himself and Desai, J., said that irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial, a duty to act fairly, that is, in consonance with the fundamental principles of substantive justice is generally implied. The presumption is that in a democractic polity wedded to the rule of law, the State or the legislature does not intend that in the exercise of their statutory powers its functionaries should act unfairly or unjustly. In the same case, Chinnappa Reddy, J., added (at p. 212) that the principles of natural justice are now considered so fundamental as to be ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’. They are, therefore, implicit in every decision making function, call it judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. The learned Judge went on to state that where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice. The implication of natural justice being presumptive, it should be followed by the authorities unless it is excluded by express words of statute or by necessary implication.
19. It may be noted that the terms ‘fairness of procedure’, http://www.judis.nic.in 51/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 ‘fair play in action’, ‘duty to act fairly’ are perhaps used as alternatives to “natural justice” without drawing any distinction. But Prof. Paul Jackson points out that ‘Such phrases may sometimes be used to refer not to the obligation to observe the principles of natural justice but, on the contrary, to refer to a standard of behaviour which, increasingly, the courts require to be followed even in circumstances where the duty to observe natural jus?tice is inapplicable” (“Natural Justice” by Paul Jackson, 2nd edn., p. 11).
20. We share the view expressed by Professor Jackson. Fairness, in our opinion, is a fundamental principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure the vast power in the modern State is not abused but properly exercised. The State power is used for proper and not for improper purposes. The authority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use the time hallowed phrase “that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done” is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration. It has no set form or procedure. It depends upon the facts of each case. As Lord Pearson said in Pearlberg v. Varty [(1972) 1 WLR 534, 547 : (1972) 2 All ELR 6] (at p. 547), fairness does not necessarily require a plurality of hearings or representations and counter-representations. Indeed, it cannot have too much elaboration of procedure since wheels of administration must move quickly.”
(ii) In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal reported in 1990 (2) SCC 746, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus, "22. An administrative order which involves civil http://www.judis.nic.in 52/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 consequences must be made consistently with the rule expressed in the Latin maxim audi alteram partem. It means that the decision maker should afford to any party to a dispute an opportunity to present his case. A large number of authorities are on this point and we will not travel over the field of authorities. What is now not in dispute is that the person concerned must be informed of the case against him and the evidence in support thereof and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. (Ridge v. Baldwin [(1963) 2 All ER 66, 75-76: (1963) 2 WLR 935] ; State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625: AIR 1967 SC 1269: (1967) 2 LLJ 266] .)
23. The shift now is to a broader notion of “fairness” or “fair procedure” in the administrative action. As far as the administrative officers are concerned, the duty is not so much to act judicially as to act fairly (See : Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1973) 1 SCC 380, 387: (1973) 3 SCR 22, 30] ; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405, 434: (1978) 2 SCR 272] ; Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 664: (1981) 2 SCR 533] and M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(1990) 2 SCC 48] .) For this concept of fairness, adjudicative settings are not necessary, nor it is necessary to have lis inter partes. There need not be any struggle between two opposing parties giving rise to a ‘lis’.
There need not be resolution of lis inter partes. The duty to act judicially or to act fairly may arise in widely differing circumstances. It may arise expressly or impliedly depending upon the context and considerations. All these types of non-adjudicative administrative decision making are now covered under the general rubric of fairness in the administration. But then even such an administrative decision unless it affects one's personal rights or one's property rights, or the loss of or prejudicially affects something which would juridically be called at least a privilege does not involve the duty to act fairly http://www.judis.nic.in 53/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 consistently with the rules of natural justice. We cannot discover any principle contrary to this concept.
29. The Chancellor, however, has to act properly for the purpose for which the power is conferred. He must take a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the statutes. He must not be guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. He must not act illegally, irrationally or arbitrarily. Any such illegal, irrational or arbitrary action or decision, whether in the nature of a legislative, administrative or quasi-judicial exercise of power is liable to be quashed being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As stated in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3: 1974 SCC (L&S) 165: (1974) 2 SCR 348] (SCC p. 38, para 85) “equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch”. The principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 must guide every state action, whether it be legislative, executive, or quasi-judicial. See Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248, 283-84: (1978) 2 SCR 621] ; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722, 740-41: 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] ; Som Raj v. State of Haryana [(1990) 2 SCC 653: JT (1990) 1 SC 286, 290] ."
(iii) In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., reported in 1991 (1) SCC 212, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 35 to 37, held as follows:-
"35. It is now too well settled that every State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution and basic to the rule of law, the system which governs us. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law. Satisfaction of this basic test in every State action is sine qua non to its validity and in this respect, the http://www.judis.nic.in 54/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 State cannot claim comparison with a private individual even in the field of contract. This distinction between the State and a private individual in the field of contract has to be borne in the mind.
36. The meaning and true import of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely stated or defined. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is trite that ‘be you ever so high, the laws are above you’. This is what men in power must remember, always.
37. Almost a quarter century back, this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [(1967) 2 SCR 703, 718-19 : AIR 1967 SC 1427 : (1967) 65 ITR 34] indicated the test of arbitrariness and the pitfalls to be avoided in all State actions to prevent that vice, in a passage as under:
“In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the http://www.judis.nic.in 55/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. (See Dicey, Law of the Constitution, 10th edn., Introduction, cx). ‘Law has reached its finest moments’, stated Douglas, J. in United States v. Wunderlich [342 US 98 : 96 Law Ed 113 (1951)] , ‘when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of some ruler…. Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered’. It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield stated it is classic terms in the Case of John Wilkes [(1770) 4 Burr 2528] , ‘means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not humour: it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful’.”
(iv) In U.P.Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap (India) Pvt.
Ltd., reported in 1993 (2) SCC 299, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 11 and 12, held as follows:
"11. The obligation to act fairly on the part of the administrative authorities was evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. This doctrine is complementary to the principles of natural justice which the quasi-judicial authorities are bound to observe. It is true that the distinction between a quasi- judicial and the administrative action has become thin, as pointed out by this Court as far back as 1970 in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150] . Even so the extent of judicial scrutiny/judicial review in the case of administrative action cannot be larger than in the case of quasi-judicial action. If the High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decisions and orders of http://www.judis.nic.in 56/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 quasi-judicial authorities it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well known, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. They have “a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred”. (Lord Diplock in Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Metropolitan Borough Counsel of Tameside [1977 AC 1014, 1064 : (1976) 3 All ER 665] .) The Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, can the Court intervene. To quote the classic passage from the judgment of Lord Greene M.R. in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [(1948) 1 KB 223, 229 : (1947) 2 All ER 680] :
“It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word ‘unreasonable’ in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with the discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting ‘unreasonably’. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.” http://www.judis.nic.in 57/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019
12. While this is not the occasion to examine the content and contours of the doctrine of fairness, it is enough to reiterate for the purpose of this case that the power of the High Court while reviewing the administrative action is not that of an appellate court.
The judgment under appeal precisely does that and for that reason is liable to be and is herewith set aside."
(v) In D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A.Industries Ltd., reported in 1993 (3) SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 9 to 14, held as follows:
"9. It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and giving him/her an opportunity of putting forward his/her case. An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [(1978) 1 SCC 405 : (1978) 2 SCR 272, 308-F] the Constitution Bench held that ‘civil consequences’ covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th edn., page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country … they include … rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action…. In State of Orissa v. (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] this Court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The person concerned must be http://www.judis.nic.in 58/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 informed of the case, the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken. Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice.
10. In State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar [1952 SCR 284 : AIR 1952 SC 75 : 1952 Cri LJ 510] per majority, a seven-Judge Bench held that the rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : (1978) 2 SCR 621] another Bench of seven Judges held that the substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass the test under Article 14. The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract. They cannot be divorced from the needs of the nation. The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to be reasonable. The procedure prescribed must be just, fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects the right of that individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. Even executive authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens, must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice.
11. The law must therefore be now taken to be well-settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 and such law would be liable to be http://www.judis.nic.in 59/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 tested on the anvil of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose of principles of natural justice. The aim of both administrative inquiry as well as the quasi-judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both.
12. Therefore, fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness. It is, thereby, conclusively held by this Court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable.
13. In Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] this Court held that http://www.judis.nic.in 60/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood received protective umbrella under the canopy of Articles 14 and 21 etc. All matters relating to employment include the right to continue in service till the employee reaches superannuation or until his service is duly terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Constitution and the rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or the statutory provisions or the rules, regulations or instructions having statutory flavour. They must be conformable to the rights guaranteed in Parts III and IV of the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees right to life which includes right to livelihood, the deprivation thereof must be in accordance with just and fair procedure prescribed by law conformable to Articles 14 and 21 so as to be just, fair and reasonable and not fanciful, oppressive or at vagary. The principles of natural justice are an integral part of the guarantee of equality assured by Article 14. Any law made or action taken by an employer must be fair, just and reasonable. The power to terminate the service of an employee/workman in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Article 14 strikes at arbitrary action. It is not the form of the action but the substance of the order that is to be looked into. It is open to the Court to lift the veil and gauge the effect of the impugned action to find whether it is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive. Fair play is to secure justice, procedural as well as substantive. The substance of the order is the soul and the effect thereof is the end result.
14. It is thus well-settled law that right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents.
http://www.judis.nic.in 61/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic inquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice. In D.T.C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress [1991 Supp (1) SCC 600 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 1213] the Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the service of a workman giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without inquiry offended Article 14. The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside."
(vi) In Dr.Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in 1994 (5) SCC 267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 6 to 9, held as follows:
"6. The concept of natural justice is not a static one but is an ever expanding concept. In the initial stages it was thought that it had only two elements, namely, (i) no one shall be a judge in his own cause and (ii) no one shall be condemned unheard. With the passage of time a third element was introduced, namely, of procedural reasonableness because the main objective of the requirement of rule of natural justice is to promote justice and prevent its miscarriage. Therefore, when the legislature confers power in the State Government to be exercised in certain circumstances or eventualities, it would be right to presume that the legislature intends that the said power be exercised in the manner envisaged by the statute. If the statute confers drastic powers it goes without saying that such powers must be exercised in a proper and fair manner. Drastic substantive laws can be suffered only if they are fairly and reasonably applied. In order to ensure fair and reasonable application of such laws courts have, over a period of time, devised rules of fair procedure to avoid arbitrary exercise of http://www.judis.nic.in 62/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 such powers. True it is, the rules of natural justice operate as checks on the freedom of administrative action and often prove time-consuming but that is the price one has to pay to ensure fairness in administrative action. And this fairness can be ensured by adherence to the expanded notion of rule of natural justice. Therefore, where a statute confers wide powers on an administrative authority coupled with wide discretion, the possibility of its arbitrary use can be controlled or checked by insisting on their being exercised in a manner which can be said to be procedurally fair. Rules of natural justice are, therefore, devised for ensuring fairness and promoting satisfactory decision-making. Where the statute is silent and a contrary intention cannot be implied the requirement of the applicability of the rule of natural justice is read into it to ensure fairness and to protect the action from the charge of arbitrariness. Natural justice has thus secured a foothold to supplement enacted law by operating as an implied mandatory requirement thereby protecting it from the vice of arbitrariness. Courts presume this requirement in all its width as implied unless the enactment supplies indications to the contrary as in the present case. This Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 :
AIR 1970 SC 150 : (1970) 1 SCR 457] after referring to the observations in State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei [(1967) 2 SCR 625 : AIR 1967 SC 1269] observed as under : (SCC p. 272, para 20) “The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it.” These observations make it clear that if the statute, expressly or by necessary implication omits the application of the rule of natural justice, the statute will not be invalidated for this omission on the http://www.judis.nic.in 63/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 ground of arbitrariness."
(vii) In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., v. Union of India reported in 2001 (2) SCC 41, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 23, held as follows:
"23. The contextual facts, therefore in no unambiguous language depict that the four JPC price elements have not been paid by the appellant herein. Further, factual score depicts recording of an undertaking to repay in the event of excess payments and in the wake of the findings as noticed hereinbefore, it would neither be fair nor reasonable nor in consonance with the concept of justice, equity and good conscience directing entitlement of the appellant as is being claimed. Doctrine of fairness and the duty to act fairly is a doctrine developed in the administrative law field to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. It is a principle of good conscience and equity since the law courts are to act fairly and reasonably in accordance with the law. The correspondence unmistakably divulges an obligation to pay certain compensation in the event there is a payment of certain levy by the appellant herein. The appellant admittedly has not made the payment: Doctrine of unreasonableness is opposed to doctrine of fairness and reasonableness will have its play, if allowed. The happening of an event has not taken place, can it be said irrespective of such an event reimbursement is to be allowed? The answer, however, cannot but be in the negative."
43. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the appellants have acted arbitrarily and their action is opposed to fairness. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, http://www.judis.nic.in 64/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 we are of the view that the impugned charge memo dated 28.06.2018 issued by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai and the notice of enquiry dated 04.10.2018, have to be quashed. Said proceedings are quashed. Order impugned in this appeal is set aside. Writ appeal is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (D.K.K., J.) 24.09.2019 Index: Yes Internet: Yes dm http://www.judis.nic.in 65/66 W.A.No.2905 of 2019 S.MANIKUMAR,J.
AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
dm W.A.No.2905 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.18766 and 18767 of 2019 24.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 66/66