IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B.Mangala ..Petitioner Vs

1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Health and Family Welfare (D1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai.

3.The Deputy Director of Health Services, Public & Preventive Medicine Department, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. ..Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 1^st respondent made in G.O (D) No. 980 dated 28.07.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits with seniority and pass such further other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr. V. Subramanian For Respondents : Mrs. R.L. Karthika, GA

O R D E R

The captioned writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the first respondent. By the said order, the first respondent, in his capacity as the Revisional Authority, modified the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner to that of compulsory retirement.

2. The petitioner, while working as a Village Health Nurse, was issued a charge memo, and the charges levelled against the petitioner read as follows:

1. That the petitioner threatened the workers of Primary Health Centre through letters and through her husband.

2. That the petitioner no attending and carrying out her duties of various health welfare schemes such as (i) Dr.Muthulakshmi Reddy Scheme for pregnant wome, (ii) School health Programme, Varummun Kapoom Thittam, Health Camps, Distribution of DEC tables, weekly check up of pregnant women, etc., 3. That the petitioner coming only on Wednesday to attend the disease prevention programmes and not coming on other days.

3. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, and as the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer conducted an ex parte enquiry and held that all the three charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. The Enquiry Report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, and an order of removal from service was passed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P. No.11224 of 2005. In the said writ petition, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the Enquiry Officer was biased. Accepting the said plea, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 12.10.2009, allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of removal from service, and remanded the matter to the first respondent therein to decide the bias petition and thereafter entrust the matter to the competent authority to proceed with the enquiry and complete the same within a period of three months.

4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the enquiry was entrusted to the third respondent. The third respondent submitted the Enquiry Report stating that the petitioner had demonstrated carelessness in public service, disobedience to the orders of senior officials, and misconduct in the presence of colleagues. It was further observed that during the investigations conducted on 12.04.2002, 08.11.2010, and 30.12.2011, the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry on 12.04.2002, and on the enquiry dates held on 08.11.2010 and

30.12.2011, the petitioner left without signing the enquiry proceedings.

5. Thereafter, the third respondent, who conducted the enquiry, and the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal from service, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the first respondent modified the punishment. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of punishment stands