9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disposal of the writ petition are as follows. (a) Petitioner while working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Kaveripattinam, Dharmapuri District, received a charge memo dated 21.8.1990 on the allegations that while she was working in the Government Hospital, Sendamangalam, demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- and accepted Rs. 30/- from one Perumal @ Singaram, Son of Ramasamy Gounder of Perumalpalayam for admitting her wife as an inpatient in the Government Hospital, and that demanded Rs. 50/- and accepted Rs. 30/- from one Ganesan, Son of Chinna Goundar, Muthuganapathy, who took his mother to the Hospital, Sendamangalam for treatment. On the said allegations, charges were framed against the petitioner and an enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Director of Medical Services to restart the disciplinary proceedings afresh from the stage where the defect has crept in and after following all the procedures as laid down in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, remit the case for passing final orders. (c) The said action of the Government in restarting the enquiry was challenged in O.A. No. 2941 of 1990 before the State Administrative tribunal and the same was disposed of by the Tribunal by common order dated 14.9.2001 along with batch of cases, which reads as follows, All these applications are filed praying for revocation of the suspension order. Suspension orders have been made as early as in 1990. In some of the cases stay has been granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06, 7.3.2006, 13.3.2006 and 20.3.2006, but no counter affidavit was filed. On instructions, the learned Government Advocate argued the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have no jurisdiction to re-open or re-issue the charge memo, after order was passed by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 950 of 1989 on 11.12.198 9, as no liberty was given to the respondents. 5. I have perused the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as referred above, wherein the Tribunal quashed the order without giving any liberty. Therefore the action of the second respondent in ordering restart of disciplinary proceeding afresh as ordered in G.O.Ms. No. 1497 dated 21.8.1990, while reinstating the petitioner, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
