The judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to the principles of natural justice, including the right to a reasonable opportunity and the need for the appellate authority to apply its mind independently. It also highlights the requirement for findings in disciplinary proceedings to be based on reliable evidence and not on conjectures and surmises.

1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Health Assistant in the Panchayat Union, Mannargudi on 20.02.1963. Thereafter he was promoted as Health Inspector on temporary basis on 10.11.1968. Subsequently he was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 09.04.1970 and thereafter continued as a Public Service Commission candidate in the post of Health Inspector. He moved to the selection grade in the Post of Health Inspector on 10.11.1978 and got promoted as Block Health Supervisor on 09.07.1999. He was due to retire from service on 30.11.2000. However, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against him in 1991 and charges were framed by the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai Region, Chennai in his proceedings RCB1/1972/90 dated 09.10.1991. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A.No.2468 of 1992. The petitioner was able to get an order of stay of all further proceedings on 15.05.1992.

2. Since the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him was pending, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.11.2000, namely two days prior to the date on which he was due to retire on Superannuation by the proceedings of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai issued in his proceedings No.R.No.37783/48/DA/92/S2 dated 28.11.2000. Simultaneously, another order was passed by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai in his proceedings in R.No.37783/49/DA/92/S2 dated 28.11.2000 not allowing the petitioner to retire from service.

3. On 02.01.2001, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A with a direction for completion of the enquiry within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the Tribunal and to pass final order within a period of two months after the completion of enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry was subsequently taken up by the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Thanjavur who completed the enquiry and submitted a report. After communicating a copy of the report and getting the explanations and additional explanations from the writ petitioner, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai accepted the finding of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Thanjavur and passed the impugned order in R.No.37783/63/DA/92/S2 dated 29.08.2001 imposing a penalty of removal from service.

4. The appeal filed by the writ petitioner was rejected by the Government in their order made in G.O.(D).No.388, Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department dated 19.03.2003. Again the petitioner submitted a review petition and the same was rejected by the Government in their order in G.O.(D).No.1319, Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department, dated 05.12.2006. The said order made in G.O.(D).No.1319, Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department, dated 05.12.2006 is impugned in the present writ petition and writ petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in G.O.(D) No.1319, Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department, dated 05.12.2006 confirming the earlier order of the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.388, Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department dated 19.03.2003 and the order of the second respondent in R.No.37783/63/DA/92/S2 dated 29.08.2001 and quash the said orders. He has also prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits, including retirement with effect from 30.11.2000 with all retirement benefits.

5. The writ petition is resisted on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondents on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been contended that the writ petitioner was found to have committed grave misconduct and a penalty of removal from service was imposed after due enquiry following the principles of natural justice and a