C O M M O N O R D E R

By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, a common order is passed.

3. These writ petitions have been filed seeking to quash the proceedings of the second respondent vide Ref.No.10686/E1/2/2021 dated 06.12.2021to and the proceedings of the first respondent vide No.98588/SCI(3)/2021 dated 24.01.2022.

4. The case of the petitioner in brief:

The writ petitioner is working as a Senior Resident in the Radiology Department under the second respondent. He has been raising several issues pertaining to the functioning of the Senior Doctors in the hospital. While so, the petitioner received a letter dated 01.12.2021 from the Resident Medical Officer and the HOD Department of Radiodianosis stating that a complaint has been received against the petitioner and asked him to appear for an enquiry on 03.12.2021 and he also appeared for the enquiry. Thereafter, the second respondent has issued an impugned suspension order to the petitioner on 06.12.2021, alleging that he has committed sexual harassment on the patient viz., Tmt.D.Chitra, but without giving an opportunity to understand the nature of complaint or inviting his explanation to the alleged complaint. The first respondent is the competent authority to issue the order of suspension, but the impugned order was passed by the second respondent. Subsequent to the aforesaid suspension order, the first respondent has passed an order dated 24.01.2022, ratifying the suspension order passed by the second respondent. Challenging the order of suspension passed by the second respondent dated 06.12.2021 and the consequential order of the first respondent dated 24.01.2022, ratifying the order of suspension passed by the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent is the competent authority to pass the impugned suspension order as per Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. But, the second respondent, who is not the competent authority, has passed the suspension order. Subsequently, a ratification order has been passed by the first respondent, which is not permissible under law. She would rely upon the order passed by this Court, in W.P Nos.4594 and 6737 of 2022 dated 31.03.2022 [ Dr.S.Subbiah vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.

by its Secretary to Government ].

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that subsequent to the aforesaid impugned suspension order, a ratification order has been passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the aforesaid impugned suspension order is not sustainable in law.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials on record.

8. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order of suspension passed by the second respondent is valid in law and also in compliance of Rules 13 and 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal), Rules 1955.

9. According to the writ petitioner, he is a Senior Resident in Radiodiagnosis under the second respondent. Based on the complaint, the petitioner has been suspended from service as per the impugned order passed by the second respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent has passed an order on 24.01.2022, ratifying the said impugned suspension order. In similar writ petitions in W.P Nos.4594 & 6737 of 2022, in the case of Dr.S.Subbiah vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, this Court had observed as follows:

"9. The primordial contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of suspension has been passed by an incompetent authority / second respondent, without any jurisdiction and also in c