IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

and

W.M.P.No.18139 of 2023

R.Thirunavukarasu ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Director,

Public Health and Preventive Medicine,

Chennai – 600 006.

2.The Deputy Director,

Health Services,

Attur, Salem District. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter dated 23.07.2020 in F.No.50/E2/2020 issued by the second Respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the second Respondent to advance the

petitioner by granting him selection Grade-1.

For petitioner : Mr.L.Rajendran

For Respondents : Mr.M.Bindran

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petitioner seeks to quash the impugned letter dated

23.07.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal and direct the 2^nd respondent to advance the petitioner by granting him Selection Grade-1.

2.The brief facts which have given rise to the filing of this petition are briefly set out hereinbelow.

2.1.The petitioner would contend that he had joined the service of the respondents board as Lab Technician, Grade-III, on 19.07.2002 and was promoted to the post of Health Inspector, Grade-I at the office of Government Primary Health Centre, Sendarapatti, Salem District, on 13.01.2009. The petitioner was retired from service as a Multipurpose Health Inspector (Grade-I), Primary Health Centre, Sendarapati, Thammampatti Circle, Salem HUD on 31.01.2019.

2.2.The petitioner would submit that during his employment, he was issued with a charge memo dated 18.12.2015, by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Salem, wherein three charges had been framed against him. The petitioner had submitted his defense statement on 22.01.2016 to the said charges and thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed who had conducted an inquiry on 06.07.2017. The said officer had submitted his report dated 06.07.2017 stating that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The Inquiry report was thereafter, forwarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.12.2017 and the petitioner had submitted his response vide letter dated 22.01.2018 refutting the contents of the report.

2.3.Thereafter, on 31.01.2019, the petitioner was permitted to retire on attaining superannuation, but, by continuing the disciplinary proceedings which has been already initiated. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent had examined the files which contains the charge memo, defence statement, Inquiry proceedings, Inquiry report and the further representation made by the petitioner and went on to hold that the charges were proved and arrived at a provisional decision to impose a punishment of pension cut of Rs.500/-per month for a period of one year as required under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

2.4.The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated

27.03.2019, from the 1^st respondent with a request to submit a reply as to whether he was accepting the quantum of punishment. The petitioner accepted the said quantum of punishment vide letter dated 24.04.2019 and the 1^st respondent had imposed the punishment under an order dated 10.06.2019 directing a pension cut of Rs.500/- per month for a period of one year.

2.5.The petitioner would submit that he had vide letter dated

19.08.2019 requested the 2^nd respondent to issue a Selection Grade-I, as he had completed the eligible period of 10 years from 13.01.2009 till 12.01.2019. However, the same was rejected without giving him an opportunity of personal hearing vide impugned letter dated 23.07.2020 on the ground that the punishment was in currency. The petitioner thereafter, submitted a fresh letter to the respondents requesting them to issue Selection Grade-I, as he had completed 10 years of service by referring to the Government Orders in this regard, wherein, it was stated that the Selection Grade-I could be issued to the Government servants who were imposed with minor