G. Ramanujam, J.

1. The scope and ambit of Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules has come up for consideration in this appeal.

2. The respondent herein retired as a Superintendent from the Tamil Nadu Medical Services on the afternoon of 31.3.1978. At the time of retirement he was working as Superintendent in the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Madras. Later, on 26.2.1979 he was served by the Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare with a memo containing the following two charges:

(1) That as a Superintendent being the head of the Institution he ought to have conducted 'on the spot enquiry' and submitted a report to the Director of Medical Services and Family Welfare about the circumstances leading to the death of patient Thiru Vasudevan who died in unusual circumstances. Thus he failed to do his legitimate duty.

(2) That he had not cared to conduct an enquiry nor did he depute some one else holding administrative responsibility to conduct an enquiry immediately and send a report about the tragic death of a patient and thus he failed to discharge his duties entrusted to him as the head of the Institution.

By that memo he was asked to file a written statement of defence