IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED WA No. 485 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 4734 OF 2026

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Secretary To Government, Health And Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The Public Health And Preventive Medicine Rep. by its Director, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. ..Appellants Vs

1. E Subbarayan S/O.Elumalai, No.252/25A, Thiruvannamalai Road, Gingee, Villupuram District.

2. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. By Its Secretary , Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.

..Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 28-03-2025 made in WP.No.23319 of 2011.

For Appellants : Ms.M.Sneha, Special Counsel for Health and Family Welfare Department For Respondent(s): Mr.N.C.Ramesh, Learned Senior Counsel Assisted By Mr.T.Sivaprakasam - For R1 Mr.B.Vijay - For R2

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Suresh Kumar J.)

This intra court appeal has been directed against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 28.03.2025 made in W.P.No.23319 of 2011.

2. The first respondent was a doctor working under the appellant Department, against whom disciplinary proceedings has been initiated based on an alleged sexual harassment complaint given by a woman staff. There were three charges framed against the doctor and an enquiry was conducted. Before the enquiry officer, a list of ten witnesses have been filed by the prosecution side, however none of them had been examined. The enquiry was not properly conducted and the alleged sexual harassment complaint given by the woman staff has not been placed before the delinquent to deny the same and to disprove the same. Therefore, it seems that a shabby enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry officer and ultimately he stated that the charges have been proved, pursuant to which the disciplinary authority has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service, against which the writ petition was filed.

3. The learned Writ Court disposed the writ petition in the year 2025. The said writ petition itself has been pending before this Court for 14 long years, where these aspects have been considered by the learned Judge and he has given the following findings.

“ 15. The Enquiry Officer, while concluding as above, has held that the charge levelled against the petitioner as proved. As already noted above, though 10 witnesses were listed in Annexure IV to the charge memo, none of the witness were examined. From the charge or from the Enquiry Officer-s report, it is not known who made complaint against the petitioner of sexual harassment. When actually, such harassment took place is also not mentioned either in the charge or in the report of the Enquiry officer. In the absence of any particulars about the date on which such harassment took place, against whom such harassment took place etc., it is highly impossible for any delinquent to answer the charge. In the instance case, no such particulars are available either in the charge memo or in the report of the Enquiry Officer. None of the complaints alleged to have been made by the female staff are placed on record nor furnished to the petitioner. In the absence of the alleged complaints made against the petitioner of sexual harassment being brought on record and in the absence of examining any of the persons who suffered such harassment in the hands of the petitioner, it is un~understandable as to how the Enquiry Officer can hold the said charge as proved. The very purpose of conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 17(b) of the Rule 1955 is with a view to establish the charges with admissible and sufficient evidence by duly affording an opportunity to the delinquent employee. If the findings on the charges are to be arrived at basing upon assumptions and presumptions, the very purpose of conducting an enquiry under Rule 17(b) of Rules 1955 would get frustrated. Thus, the fin