The court upheld the authority of the 3rd respondent to frame charges against the petitioner as per Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

1. The charge memo dated 25.06.2018 issued by the 3rd respondent is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner is now serving as Chief Civil Surgeon / Medical Officer, Government Hospital at Anthiyur.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the entire allegations are false, which were culminated from and out of the frivolous complaint alleged by one Mr.S.V.Marimuthu, a member of Communist Party and a full time Politician. He was in the habit of referring patients for immediate attendance by the Doctors, seeking the issue of Medicines without referral of the patients for his personal gain and also sought for tablets. The writ petitioner nDirector of Health Services and the same is reads arrated certain instances, which led to the filing of the complaint against the writ petitioner by Mr.S.V.Marimuthu, who belongs to Communist Party.

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner made a submission that the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Director, Medical and Rural Health Services and Family Welfare, Erode and based on the preliminary enquiry, the Department came to know that the allegations are incorrect. It is stated that the subsequent complaints also motivated by the very same Mr.S.V.Marimuthu in the name of some other persons and various such instances are narrated in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner along with the writ petition.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, on explaining certain factual instances. Mainly, it is contended that as per Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the 3rd respondent, namely, the Joint Director of Medical Services is not empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings and issue charges against the writ petitioner as the writ petitioner is serving in the State Services.

6. It is further contended that the charge could be initiated only by the Director of Medical and Rural Services and the punishment could be imposed only by the 1st respondent / The Secretary to Government. Thus, the 3rd respondent acted without any jurisdiction and on that ground also, the impugned charge memo is liable to be scrapped.

7. This Court is of an undoubted opinion that the explanations provided in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, defending the charges, can never be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is unnecessary to go into the facts and circumstances narrated by the writ petitioner as a defence to the allegations set out in the memorandum of charges. Such complex facts and circumstances arising on account of certain allegations are to be established only by filing documents and by adducing evidences, if required. Contrarily, such an exercise cannot be undertaken by the Hon'ble High Court in a writ proceedings nor a charge memo can be quashed by appreciating the defence statements provided in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. This being the legal principles, in respect of the adjudication of the defense statements provided by the delinquent officials in a writ proceedings.

8. Now this Court has to consider the ground raised by the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner as per Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority.

9. Let us now read the Amended Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which is extracted hereunder:-

12.(1) The State Government may impose any of the penalties specified in items (i) and (iii) to (viii) in rule 8 on members of the State Services;

Provided that if the Governor of Tamil Nadu is himself, the appointing authority for any service or class or category thereof, he may himself impose