Madras High Court
S.Saraswati vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 June, 2022
WP(MD)No.5163 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD)No.5163 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.4149 of 2019
S.Saraswati ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Department of Public,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
4.The Dean,
Madras Medical College cum Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital,
Chennai, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.5163 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned
Charge Memo issued by the 3d respondent Director of Medical Education in
Ref.No.61839/SCI/3/2017 dated 20.03.2018 (received on 22.03.2018), Quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner herein has challenged the charge memo dated 20.03.2018,
whereby the respondents had contemplated disciplinary action under Rule 17(b)
of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.
2.The substance of the allegations against the petitioner herein is that she
had not provided proper treatment to a patient, who was a remand prisoner and
who had died.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.5163 of 2019
3.On the same set of charges relating to dereliction of duties, several other
Doctors from various Departments were proceeded with the charges under Rule
17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955.
When three of the Doctors had challenged the charge memo before this Court,
this Court, in the case of Dr.M.N.Karthi vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary, Department of Public and others in
WP(MD)Nos.9256 to 9258 of 2018 dated 15.03.2022, had quashed the charge
memo predominantly on vagueness and that the charge will not constitute a
misconduct. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“16. The allegation against the petitioners are that they
have not given “proper treatment”. As rightly pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners it is a vague term. The
petitioners have submitted an explanation that they had examined
the patient and had submitted their opinion that there is no injury
in bone, vascular. The Learned Senior Counsel relied on the
judgment reported in 2002 3 SCC 443 in the case of State of U.P
and others VS Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, the relevant portion of
the paragraph no.13 is extracted hereunder:
“13. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
even if the charges as levelled against the respondent are
taken to be proved, yet no case of misconduct would be
made out, so as to make the respondent liable for any
punishment. In this connection he has referred to a decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.5163 of 2019
of this Court reported in Union of India v. J. Ahmed where
the Court was considering the provisions of the All-India
Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. The
case related to the disciplinary proceedings against an
officer who was likely to retire and was to be retained
during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, under
suspension. In that connection while considering the
question as to what amounts to misconduct, it was observed
that an act or omission or lack of efficiency or failure to
attain highest standard of administrative ability may not by
itself amount to or constitute misconduct. Error of judgment
in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in
discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct.
There was an outbreak of disturbances in the district of
Nowgong, Assam where the officer was holding the post of
Deputy Commissioner. The charge in that case seemed to
have been that the officer showed complete lack of
leadership while disturbances broke out and disclosed
complete inaptitude or lack of foresight and lack of firmness
to take quick and firm decision. We feel that it will be
difficult to draw any analogy from the facts of the case
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. It
also has however been observed that negligence in duty may
amout to misconduct in certain cases where consequences
may be directly attributed to the negligence of the
delinquent resulting in heavy losses”.
17. The Learned Government Pleader submitted that one of the
delinquent filed a writ petition and the same was dismissed.
Another delinquent had filed a petition and the same is pending. If
this petition is allowed then the same would affect the proceedings
of the other delinquents. But if there is no prima facie case against
the delinquent, moreover the charge is absolutely vague, then the
same shall be interfered. Infact the charge memo was issued to
save the skin of the respondents from the wrath of the National
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.5163 of 2019
Human Rights Commission. Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the charge as stated in the charge memo is
not a misconduct and this Court is inclined to quash the impugned
charge memo as far as the petitioners are concerned. The
impugned charge memo is quashed.”
4.It is not in dispute that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the
aforesaid cases as well as the petitioner herein are one and the same. While that
being so, the petitioner herein need not be proceeded with on the same set of
charges, whereby this Court had already quashed the charge memo against the co-
delinquents. On this short ground, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
Accordingly, the impugned charge memo dated 20.03.2018 is quashed and this
Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.5163 of 2019
M.S.RAMESH, J.
Sm
To:
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Department of Public,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Department of Health & Family Welfare,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.
4.The Dean,
Madras Medical College cum Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital,
Chennai, Chennai – 600 003.
Order made in
W.P.(MD)No.5163 of 2019
Dated:
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
