IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.Justice MUMMINENEN SUDHEER KUMAR, J
DR.R.LEELVATHI W/O.J.PAUL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMILNADU – Respondent
ORDER
While the petitioner was working as Director of Veterinary services in Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department of the Respondent State, she was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by placing her under suspension on 29.09.2000, while the date of superannuation of the petitioner was 30.09.2000. It was thereafter the Government through G.O.(2D)No.57 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH1) Department dated 24.06.2005, ordered for disciplinary action against the petitioner and two others namely Dr.D.Ebenezer and Thiru.T.Kannappan under Rule 9A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules . Accordingly, the charge memo dated 09.10.2006 was served on the petitioner containing 6 charges. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the said charges and after having conducted an enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 08.07.2010. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges 1 to 4 and 6 as not proved and insofar as charge No.5 is concerned, the enquiry held that the said charge is proved. It is thereafter the 1st Respondent furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner through letter dated 25.02.201
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.