V SANKARAN Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT; DIRECTOR OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE AND DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, SOUTH ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein- Dr. V. Sankaran, filed O.A. No. 10452 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai (later converted as the present Writ Petition), seeking to call for the records of the 1St respondent relating to proceedings in G.O. (D) No. 107, Health and Family Welfare (D-2) Department, dt. 11.2.1994 as confirmed by order of the said authority dt. 14/3/97 as per the proceedings in G.O.(D) No. 1349, Health and Family Welfare Department, dt. 15/10/97, with a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits till the actual date of superannuation and to regulate the leave and pending increments of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon at the Primary Health Center at Satyamangalam, South Arcot District in 1966. He was transferred to different places and, during the period 1986-88, while he was serving as Assistant Surgeon at the Government Hospital, Tittagudi, South Arcot District, he submitted an Application, dated 05.04.1988, seeking to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 01.08.1988, on the ground that he had then completed 20 years of requisite service for going on voluntary retirement and also informing that there was no case pending against him in any court nor any departmental proceedings initiated against him by the Department. But curiously, the petitioner's application, dated 05.04.1988, was not accepted by the respondent/Department and a memo, dated 18.07.1988, came to be issued after 103 days from the date of submission of the petitioner's Application; whereby, the voluntary retirement proposal made by the petitioner came to be negatived, stating that a case/Civil Suit was pending against the petitioner before the Sub Court, Vrithachalam, and that there were no proper entries available in the petitioner's Service Book about his completion of 20 years of service. Immediately after receipt of the said memo, dated 18.07.1988, the petitioner sent a reply letter, dated 09.08.1988, wherein, he explained that the Civil Suit referred to in the memo was already dismissed on 14.07.1987 by the Sub Court, Vrithachalam; therefore, there was no case pending against him as on the date of the Application dated 05.04.1988 and further, for the lapse on the part of the Department in properly maintaining the Service Book, the actual period of service i.e., 20 years, put in by the petitioner, cannot be denied or disputed. The respondent/Department, without appreciating the explanation offered, proceeded to issue a charge memo, dated 18.10.1989, against the petitioner for his unauthorised absence from 21.12.1987. Ultimately, the petitioner came to be dismissed from service; hence, the present Writ Petition (Originally O.A. No. 10452 of 1998).

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, while elaborating his submission on the aspect of issuance of charge memo, dated 18.07.1988, as against the petitioner, would state that when the petitioner, after completing 20 years of service, submitted the application dated 05.04.1988, seeking to avail Voluntary Retirement Scheme with a request to relieve him with effect from 01.08.1988, and when there was no criminal charge pending against him on the date of application nor any case before a court of law; as provided under Fundamental Rule-56 of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), the petitioner, who sought to go on voluntary retirement through the Application dated 05.04.1988 by relieving him with effect from 01.08.1988, should be deemed to have been granted such request, on expiry of 90 days from the date of Application on 05.04.1988. That being so, the approach of the Department, in utter disregard to FR-56 of the Rules, in rejecting the proposal by memo, dated 18.07.1988, after 103 days from the date of submission of the Application dated 05.04.1988 and ultimately passing the order of removal from service after initiating Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, having regard to the fact and reason that the petitioner complied with the requisite criterion for going on voluntary retirement as there was no case or departmental proceedings pending against him on the crucial date-05.04.1988 and that the petitioner, prima facie, completed 20 years of service; is totally unjust and unfair and therefore, the ultimate proceedings have no sanction in the eye of law.