Madras High Court
Dr.U.Rajendran vs The Secretary To Government on 12 April, 2022
W.A.No.610 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No. 610 of 2022
Dr.U.Rajendran ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Secretary to Government
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai- 600 010.
3. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai- 600005. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent Act, against the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2013 in W.P.No.9823 of 2005 on the
file of this Court.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.610 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arivalagan
For Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abimanyu
Additional Government Pleader
*****
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN.,J
and
N.MALA.,J
The Present Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 12.03.2013 in W.P.No.9823 of 2013, wherein the learned Single refused to
interfere with the order passed by the 1st Respondent in GOD.No.1447, Health and
Family Welfare [I-2] Department dated 28.12.2004.
2. The case of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant
Surgeon in the Government Primary Health Centre, Athur on 08.08.1980 and thereafter
he was posted at various places in and around Madurai. Due to ill health, he applied for
long leave from 07.08.1991 to 24.02.1993 and again from 18.07.1994 to 10.09.1994,
due to which a Charge Memo dated 23.05.1995, framing five charges came to be issued
by the 2nd Respondent, calling upon him to submit explanation. On receipt of the same,
the Writ Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, stating about his health condition
and inability to join duty. Being not satisfied with the same, an enquiry was ordered to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.610 of 2022
be conducted. The Appellant was allowed to work as Assistant Professor in Cardio
Thoracic Surgery, Madurai Medical College from 09.01.2002. Thereafter, due to his
health condition, again he was constrained to take medical leave from 25.02.1993 to
17.07.1994 and from 18.07.1994 to 08.01.2002 and rejoined on 09.01.2002. In the
meanwhile, he was asked to participate in the enquiry, for which the Appellant
submitted a detailed statement to the Enquiry Officer, expressing his inability to attend
enquiry, in view of his health problem, but the Enquiry Officer without considering the
same has issued an exparte report on 07.02.1997 and based on the same, an order dated
28.12.2004 ,which is impugned in this Writ Petition was passed by the 1st Respondent
dismissing the Writ Petitioner from service. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition in
W.P.No.9823 of 2005 was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.03.2013 dismissed the Writ
Petition on the ground that no plea has been taken by the Writ Petitioner either in the
affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition or in his explanation dated 27.01.1996 to
the effect that he has gone on medical leave only with prior permission of the higher
officials. That apart, the learned Single Judge observed that in the absence of
participating in for enquiry before the enquiry officer, the prayer sought for by the Writ
Petitioner cannot be granted. Further, on considering the unauthorised absence for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.610 of 2022
long period and the deliberate attitude of the Writ Petitioner in not attending the
enquiry, the Writ Petition came to be dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved over the said order, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner/Appellant submitted that
the enquiry officer failed to consider the explanation submitted by the Appellant
expressing his inability to attend enquiry on account of his ill health, but the learned
Single Judge failed to consider the same and dismissed the Writ Petition. He further
submitted that though the enquiry was over in 1997 and the Service Commission has
given its report in the year 1998, the Appellant was permitted to join duty in the year
2002, and the authorities concerned have not passed the termination order in time and
the reason for such delay was not explained.
6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents
submitted that the Writ Petitioner being aware of the consequence of unauthorised
absence for a long time, deliberately kept himself away from official duty, without prior
permission, which fact was clearly considered by the learned Single Judge and the
learned Single Judge on considering the overall facts and circumstances has refused to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.610 of 2022
accede the request of the Writ Petitioner and hence the order of the learned Single Judge
does not warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
8. The medical profession is a noble profession and the Doctors are considered as
substitute for Gods and their presence is always required. In this case,the Writ
Petitioner, being a Doctor absented himself frequently and unauthorisedly for various
long periods as detailed above. Apart from that, he did not evince any interest to
participate in the domestic enquiry and produce the documents to put forth his case as to
ill-health suffered by him. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
Writ Petitioner that the Respondents having allowed the delinquent to work even after
the submission of the report and the opinion of the Service Commission, permitting the
appellant/delinquent to work thereafter, would only go to show that the respondents did
not have any grievance with regard to the unauthorised absence. Though the said
contention, on the face of it looks attractive, the mere act of the Respondents in
permitting the petitioner to work even after submission of the report, cannot be deemed
to mean that the misconduct of the petitioner had been condoned by the authority
concerned. It is to be pointed out that it is not an isolated misconduct but a series of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.610 of 2022
continuous abstainment from work, that too in the medical profession, which has
resulted in the punishment of dismissal from service being imposed. No iota of
evidence has been produced by the Writ Petitioner either before the disciplinary
authority or before the learned Single Judge to sustain his plea of suffering from any
ailment. It is trite that the scope of judicial review is very limited and this Court should
not step into the shoes of the disciplinary authority by modifying the punishment, unless
perversity, arbitrariness or unreasonableness has been shown to have entered into such a
decision making process. In the above backdrop, this Court is not inclined to grant
relief as prayed for by the Appellant. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
[S.V.N., J.,] [N.M., J]
12.04.2022
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.610 of 2022
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
N.MALA,J.
arr
W.A.No. 610 of 2022
12.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
