(1.) THE petitioner, who was an Ex-service man, was given the post of Sergeant by the Government of Tamil Nadu and he was appointed as Sergeant in Government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children, Chennai on 03.09.1990. He was served with a Charge Sheet on 18.07.1991 stating that he had handed over a body of one Smt. Selvi to her husband, which is a Medical legal case, without observing the required formalities and without obtaining permission from higher authorities. Further, the petitioner has added a word 'No' in the column 'Police Case', which is a serious in nature. Consequent to the Charge memo, he was served with suspension order along with Thiru.Musalaya, Sanitary Maistry, who was in charge of the mortuary ward at that time. Based on the Charge Memo, enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children. On completion of the enquiry, the petitioner's suspension order was revoked by the authorities. THE Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and passed a punishment order dated 09.04.1992 stating that the period of suspension would be treated as Punishment and further suspension/punishment period would not be considered for computation of his pension after retirement. However, the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Disciplinary authority. THEreafter, after a period of two years, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 31.05.1994 under Rule 36 read with 14 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as to why the punishment should not be increased. THE petitioner sent a reply dated 04.07.1994 seeking to furnish certain documents namely Police Report, Station Medical Officers' Report and Assistant Surgeons' Report so as to enable him to submit a detailed explanation. Since the documents were not furnished, the petitioner has filed an Original Application before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of with an observation that all the necessary documents should be furnished to the petitioner in accordance with law. THEreafter, after a lapse of three years from the date of show cause notice, a second enquiry officer was appointed and who conducted enquiry. Even then, the documents sought for by the petitioner were not furnished and ultimately, based on the enquiry officer report dated 19.11.1997, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.06.1998 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come forward with this application before the Tribunal.
(2.) A) The respondents hAve filed A reply AffidAvit. In the reply AffidAvit, it wAs stAted thAt the chArge AgAinst the petitioner wAs very serious in nAture. On 01.06.1991, the petitioner hAd hAnded over the body (Medico-legAl cAse) to her husbAnd without obtAining cleArAnce from the Police And without specific orders of the Resident MedicAl Officer And AssistAnt Resident MedicAl Officer who were on duty At thAt time. After knowing the fAct, the Resident MedicAl Officer of Government KAsturbA GAndhi HospitAl for Women And Children, ChennAi, immediAtely proceeded to KilpAuk MedicAl College HospitAl, ChennAi, for investigAtion wherein it wAs reported thAt the body of deceAsed Tmt.Selvi hAs been confiscAted by Police Authority (T.B.ChAttrAm Police) At her residence And kept in the KilpAuk MedicAl College HospitAl, MortuAry for post-mortem. It hAs been reported thAt the petitioner hAd mAde the following mAlprActices And fAlsificAting the Government records. (i) He by Altering the deAth certificAte of Tmt. Selvi by Adding the word 'No' And releAsed the body to her husbAnd by eArmArking 'No Police cAse' (ii) LAter he went to the residence of the deceAsed, obtAined the deAth certificAte And scored out the word 'No'. (iii) Due to his guilty conscience he visited the police stAtion At T.P.ChAttrAm, AnnA NAgAr, ChennAi, And residence of the deceAsed lAdy Selvi with ulterior motive to fAlsificAte the deAth certificAte/Government Records. b) Therefore, chArge were frAmed under Rule 17(b) of the TAmil NAdu Civil Services (Discipline And AppeAl) Rules vide chArge memo No.2691/E3/91, dAted 18.07.1991. After the punishment wAs imposed, the Inspection cell of this DirectorAte hAs exAmined the disciplinAry proceedings initiAted AgAinst the petitioner And others. BAsed on the report of the Inspection Cell, the Director of MedicAl EducAtion being the AppellAte Authority, hAs decided to review the cAse under Rule 36 of TAmil NAdu Civil Services (Discipline And AppeAl) Rules, And decided for enhAncing the penAlty. Accordingly, A show cAuse notice wAs issued And for the show cAuse notice, he did not submit his explAnAtion, insteAd ApproAched the TAmil NAdu AdministrAtive TribunAl And filed O.A.No.3711 of 1994 And it wAs dismissed. In thAt order, it wAs further observed thAt the requirement under Rule 17(b) of TAmil NAdu Civil Service (Discipline And AppeAl) Rules should be complied with for AwArding Any specified penAlty thereon. After the sAid dismissAl of the originAl ApplicAtion, the petitioner filed Another O.A.No.5882 of 1994 before the TAmil NAdu AdministrAtive TribunAl, with A prAyer to quAsh the disciplinAry proceedings initiAted AgAinst him. While dismissing the O.A.No.5882 of 1994 on 16.12.1994, the TribunAl held thAt the initiAtion of penAlty proceedings is not irregulAr And when the petitioner hAs not AppeAled AgAinst the punishment AwArd, he is in effect deemed to hAve Accepted the findings on the chArges. It wAs further observed thAt the documents And stAtement of witnesses in support of the chArges should be furnished to the petitioner to enAble him to put forwArd his defence And Accordingly copies of document were served to the petitioner during MAy 1995 itself. He wAs Also given A reAsonAble opportunity to peruse the AvAilAble records And he perused the records on 12.12.1996. The Another enquiry officer wAs nominAted And he conducted enquiry And personAl heAring wAs given to the petitioner And on 20.08.1997 the enquiry officer submitted his report And concluded thAt All the three chArges levelled AgAinst the petitioner Are proved And thAt wAs communicAted to the petitioner vide letter dAted 10.12.1996 And his further representAtion sought. Even in the further representAtion submitted by the petitioner on 03.01.1998, he did not putforth Any fresh points for considerAtion. Therefore, the Director of MedicAl EducAtion who is the AppellAte Authority hAs cArefully And independently exAmined the relevAnt cAse under Rule 36 of TAmil NAdu Civil Services (Discipline And AppeAl) Rules And AwArded the enhAnced penAlty. It is submitted thAt imputAtions mAde AgAinst the petitioner were extremely serious. While hAndling the Medico-legAl cAse, the petitioner hAd Acted in A cAreless And high hAnded mAnner by overlooking the Resident MedicAl Officer And Police Authorities And he hAd hAnded over the body of Tmt. Selvi to her husbAnd on 01.06.1991. Being An Ex-servicemAn, he fAiled to dischArge his duty honestly. He hAs deliberAtely violAted the well-settled procedure And code rules. Therefore, the AppellAte Authority imposed the penAlty of "Compulsory Retirement" And Accordingly, he wAs retired from service on the Afternoon on 18.06.1998. Furthermore, the petitioner wAs plAced under suspension with effect from 02.06.1991 And followed All the formAlities. In so fAr As the enquiry is concerned the enquiry officer hAs scrupulously followed All the procedures And the petitioner wAs given sufficient opportunity. The petitioner Also did not prefer Any AppeAl AgAinst the punishment order And he Accepted the sAme therefore, it is not open now for the petitioner to chAllenge this order, especiAlly, he fAiled to chAllenge the disciplinAry proceedings. Under those circumstAnces, the order pAssed by the AppellAte Authority is vAlid.
(3.) THEREFORE, as per Rule 36, it is very clear that the revision can be done by the State Government or the Head of the Department or by the appellate authority other than state Government within 6 months from the date of the order to be revised. It is also stipulated that