Fair and proper procedure must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings, including evidence examination and the right to cross-examine witnesses, to ensure justice.

ORDER

The petitioner herein, while working as a Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, Jamuna Maruthur, Thiruvannamalai was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17 (b) of “the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955” (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1955”) by issuing a charge memo bearing R.No.4934/PHC3/A3/2003 dated 31.03.2004, containing three charges. The said charges read as under:

“Charge No. I That the said Dr. E. Subbarayan, while functioning as Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kedar, Villupuram District had not claim and paid the eligible salary to Dr. Rajakannan, Medical Officer Prim Health Centre, Kaanai, who was working under his control. In performance of his official duties in exercise of the powers conferred on him.

Charge No. II That the said Dr. E.Subbarayan, while functioning as Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Kedar, Villupuram has not performed legitimate duty and has done misappropriation of Government money in the “VARUMUN KAPPOM THITTAM" by getting signatures in the acquaintance register from the staff of Government Primary Health Centre like Karuvatchi and Anniyur, as if they have received the fee, which he has actually disbursed the fee to them.

Charge No.III That the said Dr.E.Gubbarayan, while functioning as Block Medical Officer, Primary Health Center. Kedar, Villupuram during the weekly review meeting and in course of his tenure has indulged in sexual harassment, (includes unwelcoming implication behaviour noted below) among the female staff like Sanitary worker, Village Health Nurses, Auxiliary Midwife Including lady Doctors.

a) Sexually coloured remarks.

b) Asking about the female staff husbands Profession including their personnel Sexual Life.

c) Commenting on the Physical nature the wearing of saris and blouse of female staff.”

2. In support of the said charges, two documents were sought to be relied upon and 10 witnesses were sought to be examined as witnesses. In response to the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 05.07.2004 denying the charges while explaining the charges along with 26 documents. It was thereafter, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine appointed the Deputy Director of Health Services as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry on different dates. However, no witness was examined during the course of enquiry, except recording the statement of the petitioner herein. However, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Government and in turn the same was forwarded to the petitioner through letter dated 23.05.2005 to submit a further representation on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer in his report concluded that all the three charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his further representation dated 26.09.2005 bringing it to the notice of the Government that no witness was examined during the course of enquiry and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross examine any of the witnesses listed in the Annexure IV to the charge memo. Thereafter, the first respondent having accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, passed a final order through G.O.(D)No.1233, Health and Family Welfare (D2) Department, dated 04.10.2007, imposing punishment of dismissal from service,. The petitioner filed review/appeal seeking review of the said order dated 04.10.