Disciplinary action must consider proportionality of punishment in light of circumstances, including health issues, and proper procedure must be followed to ensure fair treatment.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the First Respondent G.O.(D).No.250 Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department 28/02/2020 and proceedings of the 2^nd respondent issued in Ref.No.51260/G1/10/S2 dated 30.01.2012 and quash the same and to direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service and to grant him all consequential benefits within a limited time frame.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed in the year 1986 as Leprosy Inspector and posted to work at Kolachel, and after merger of the Leprosy wing with the Public Health Department, he was posted as Health Inspector, Grade-1. He was served Charge Memo by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Tirupur, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules in Pro.No.2932/A3/09 dated 23.07.2010, for absence from duty from 11.02.2009. Challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 30.01.2012, removing the petitioner from service, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a attacked with cancer disease in the year 2009 and in order to undergo medical treatment for the same and he was proceeded on admissible and eligible leave from 11.02.2009 and took treatment at various hospitals, after submitting leave application. Thereafter, due to continuous medical treatment, he was not able to rejoin duty on the expiry of the leave applied for. He was unable to send leave application for extension of leave after the first spell of leave as there was nobody to help the petitioner in this regard. Since his wife also fell sick during the relevant period, therefore, there is no possibility to submit his leave application. There was several family problems and he was suffering from mental stress.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that while the fact remains so, the Deputy Director of Health Services, Tirupur, issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules in Proc.No.2932/A3/03 dated 23.07.2010, levelling the following single charge against the petitioner:

''Thiru.P.Gunasekaran serving as Health Inspector at 15, Velambalayam Primary Health Centre, as abstained from duty without any basis from 11/02/2009. In view of the same, he has caused prejudice to the Government work by not attending to duty without prior permission. In the statement of allegation at Annexure-2, it has been stated that the letter of the Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Perumanallur in his letter proceedings No.159/2009 dated 15.06.2009 sent by registered post had sought for an explanation from Thiru.P.Gunasekaran, Health Inspector Grade-I for absenting from duties from 11/02/2009 and as Thiru P.Gunasekaran, Health Inspector, Grade-I, was not staying at the said address, the above said memo have been returned by the Postman.''

5. The learned counsel would further submit that in the statement of allegations at Annexure 2 to the said Charge Memo that the said P.Gunasekaran, Health Inspector, Grade-I, has absented himself from 11.02.2009 and caused prejudice to the Government Work.

6. In the list of documents in Annexure 3 to the Charge Memo, the only document marked was the aforesaid show cause notice issued by the Block Health Officer, Perumanallur in and by proceedings Na.Ka.No.159/2009 dated 15.06.2009 alone was marked as documents. In Annexure No.4 to the Charge Memo under the caption the list of witnesses against the petitioner, it has been clearly stated as ''Nil''.

7. The learned counsel would further submit t