Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
Dr. S. Subbiah, MS, M.Ch., Professor (Surgical Oncology) Government Kilpauk Medical College/Institute of Non Communicable Diseases, & Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare (I-1)Department, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P.Nos. 4594 & 6737 of 2022 & WMP.Nos. 4727 & 6820 of 2022
Decided On : 31-03-2022
Suspension - Service Reinstatement - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules - Rule 13, Rule 17(e) - The impugned order of suspension passed by the second respondent and the subsequent ratification order passed by the first respondent are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits as per the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Professor of Surgical Oncology, was suspended on the alleged ground of association with a political organization and expressing disloyal sentiments, which the petitioner denied. The impugned suspension order was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned suspension order was passed by an incompetent authority and its subsequent ratification by the first respondent was unsustainable in law. The court quashed the suspension order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the suspension order and its subsequent ratification, along with the petitioner's alleged association with a political organization and expressing disloyal sentiments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned suspension order was passed by an incompetent authority, as per Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, and its subsequent ratification by the first respondent was unsustainable in law. The court also emphasized the principle that when the Act prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body.
Final Decision: The impugned suspension order and the subsequent ratification order were quashed, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits. The respondents were also directed to conduct disciplinary proceedings following the procedure as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules and conclude the same expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.P.No.4594 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the respondent in Ref.No.12999/SC1/1/2022 dated 17.02.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits forthwith.
Prayer in W.P.No.6737 of 2022: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in G.O.(D)No.234, Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department dated 09.03.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits forthwith.)
Common Order:
By consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. For the sake of convenience, the array of parties in W.P.No.6737 of 2022 is adopted.
2. W.P.No.4594 of 2022 has been filed challenging the impugned order of suspension passed by the second respondent in Ref.No.12999/SC1/1/2022 dated 17.02.2022, with a prayer to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits forthwith. W.P.No.6737 of 2022 has been filed challenging the consequential order of ratification passed by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.234, Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department dated 09.03.2022, with a prayer to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits forthwith
3. The case of the petitioner, briefly narrated, are as follows:
3.1. The petitioner initially joined service as Assistant Surgeon by an order dated 10.02.1992 and on successful completion of M.S. Degree and M.Ch., in Oncology, he was posted as a Senior Assistant Professor of Surgical Oncology. The petitioner's name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of Associate Professor of Surgical Oncology, vide G.O.(D)No.569, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 04.06.2013. An amendment was issued to the said Government Order in G.O.(D) No.695, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 01.07.2013, by virtue of which the petitioner was appointed as Associate Professor of Surgical Oncology, Government Kilpauk Medical College and Surgical Oncologist, Institute of Non-Communicable Diseases and Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai in the existing vacancy.
3.2. By Government Order in G.O.(D)No.1519, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 31.10.2016, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Professor of Surgical Oncology, Government Kilpauk Medical College and Surgical Oncologist, Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai in the retirement vacancy of one Dr.R.Rajaraman. The petitioner would point out at this juncture that his appointment orders as Professor were issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, by order of the Governor and a mere perusal of the letter of the second respondent in Ref.No.68967/E1/1/2016 dated 31.10.2016 would reveal that the role of the second respondent was only to communicate the decision taken by the Government in respect of the petitioner.
3.3. The petitioner states that he had performed more than 5000 major cancer surgeries successfully, which include more than 500 advanced laparoscopic cancer surgeries, which is unique in the entire State Government service. That apart, he had authored 97 scientific journal publications and as many as, 163 Cancer Specialists Doctors from the international medical fraternity, have cited his articles in their scientific journal publications.
3.4. While so, to his shock and surprise, all of a sudden, the second respondent has passed an order of suspension in proceedings in Ref.No.12999/SC1/1/2022 dated 17.02.2022 on the alleged ground that complaints and report
The impugned suspension order was passed by an incompetent authority, and its subsequent ratification by the first respondent was unsustainable in law, emphasizing the principle that when the Act pre....
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recordin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority must exercise independent discretion when issuing a suspension order, as required by Regulation 4(1) of the Regulatio....
Prolonged suspension beyond three months without serving charge memo is unsustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
