IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition No.42748 of 2006 (O.A.No.4853 1999) A.Seeniappan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicines, 259, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. 2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicines, (Malaria & Filaria), 259, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.4853 of 1999 from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal praying for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge memo issued to the applicant issued in R.No.125799/VC.1/96/C1, dated 14.5.1999 by the second respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion with reference to his seniority and pass such further or other orders. For petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrasekaran For respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP(Writs) ------ O R D E R: The petitioner has challenged the impugned charge memo dated 14.5.1999 issued by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (Malaria and Filaria), Chennai, on the ground that the duties of laboratory Assistants are confined only Laboratory and comprised of blood smear examination collected from fever cases. Therefore, he has submitted that it is only the duty of the Field Assistants to collect mosquitoes and to give the same for Laboratory tests. 2. Assailing the impugned charge memo, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted Laboratory Assistants are qualified to do only microscopical work, but they were asked to collect mosquitoes by themselves, in addition to their nature of work mentioned in the job-chart assigned to them. According to him, the work of Collection of Mosquitoes' has to be done only by Field Assistants and therefore they cannot be compelled to do the said work, and therefore, the impugned charge memo has to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 8.12.1997, by the third respondent under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, not collecting mosquitoes, he had pointed out the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Laboratory Assistants and inspite of the same, he was inflicted with a penalty of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. 4. It is his further contention that the respondent has no jurisdiction, to frame charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and therefore prayed to quash the same. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. The charges, framed against the petitioner reads as follows: "As per this office letter R.No.55352/VC.1/96/C5 dated 28.5.1996, the Laboratory Assistant should have collected mosquitoes to monitor the J.E./Dengu Vector density. The Dengue fever, Dengue Hemorrhage fever, Japanese Encephalities popularly known as Brain Fever spread through the mosquitoes bites. The identification of mosquitoes and monitoring the JE/Dengu Vector density can enable one to forecast about the outbreak of the diseases. Early containment measures can be taken to check the outbreak of the disease by way of Fogging and Spray operations and thereby precious human lives could be saved especially the children below 12 years of age. 2. The dishonest activities of the Laboratory Assistants spoil the Public Health and Administration. 3. The non collection of mosquitoes to assess the Vector Density by the Laboratory Assistant amounts to dereliction of duties. 4. He has failed to maintain the connected Malaria Registers and PHC Maps properly. 5. Repeated instructions issued by this Directorate and the Deputy Director of Health Services are not carried out properly and it reveals the insubordination to obey the orders of higher officials." 7. The statement of allegations, which form part of the charges are as follows: ANNEXURE:II STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NAMELY IMPUTATION OF MISXCONDUCT IN RESPECT OF THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST Thiru. A.Seeniappan Laboratory Assistant. Non collection of mosquitoes and not giving reply within the stipulated time leads to insubordination's and dereliction of duty. The Japanese Encephalitiews popularly known as Brain fever is endemic in Tamilnadu from 1954 onwards. From 1977, some of the Districts of Tamilnadu are affected by this disease. They are Tirunelveli, Madurai, Trichy, Cuddalore, Villupuram and Tiruvannamalai Districts, where most of the children died due to Japanese Encephalitis and the children who were escaped from death are having neurological problems such as the damage of the limbs and speech. They severely suffer this dangerous life span of the individual. This disease spreads through the mosquitoes. In order to avoid this death and damage of the public, it is necessary to identify the mosquitoes and the vector density so that precautionary measures can be taken by spraying and fogging in the endemic village on the basis of the vector mosquito density. By these precautionary measures, death of children by this disease can be avoided. So the Laboratory Assistants in the Primary Health centre area are entrusted with the work of vector density monitoring in those rural areas. Failure of Laboratory Assistant to do the above work hampers the implementation of precautious measures to control the disease. Dengue fever is also caused by the mosquitoes. These Ades mosquitoes breeds in the stagnant water of the domestic containers around the houses. This Dengue fever affects all the age group of people and causes death. If the vector density of the village is identified, control measures can be taken to avoid the spread of disease by spraying the insecticides and fogging. So the Laboratory Assistants of the Primary Health Centres are entrusted with the work of vector density monitoring in that rural areas. Since the Laboratory Assistants failed to monitor the vector density, the work connected with the prevention and control of the diseases is greatly affected." 8. Perusal of the letter dated 7.6.1999, of the petitioner addressed to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, chennai, the first respondent herein, shows that since the charges were given in English, the petitioner has only sought for a copy of the charge memo in Tamil, so as to enable him to submit his explanation. The petitioner has not made any objections as regarding the competence of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, the first respondent to frame the charges against him. 9. It is well settled that, In Union of India V Upendra Singh reported in 1994 (3) SCC 357, the Central Administrative Tribunal examined the correctness of the charges against the respondent therein on the basis of the material produced by him and quashed the same. The Union of India preferred an appeal. The Supreme Court, after considering the decisions in T.C.Basappa V. T.Nagappa reported in AIR 1954 SC 440, which was followed in Ujjam Bai V. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1962 SC 1621 and V.D.Trivedi V. Union of India reported in 1993 (2) SCC 55, at paragraphs 4 and 6 of the judgment in Upendra Singh's case, held as follows: "In the case of charges framed in a disciplinary inquiry the tribunal or court can interfere only if on the charges framed (read with imputation or particulars of the charges, if any) no misconduct or other irregularity alleged can be said to have been made out or the charges framed are contrary to any law. At this stage, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness or truth of the charges. The tribunal cannot take over the functions of the disciplinary authority. The truth or otherwise of the charges is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. Indeed, even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if the matter comes to Court or tribunal, they have no jurisdiction to look into the truth of the charges or into the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as the case may be. The Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the principles, norms and the constraints which apply to the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal. If the original application of the respondent were to be filed in the High Court it would have been termed, property speaking, as a Writ of prohibition. A Writ of prohibition is issued only when patent lack of jurisdiction is made out. It is true that a High Court acting under Article 226 is not bound by the technical rules applying to the issuance of prerogative writs like certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in United Kingdom, yet the basic principles and norms applying to the said Writs must be kept in view" In Union of India V. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, the respondent therein was issued with a charge memo for availing reservation against the post earmarked for ST, though he did not belong to the said category. Instead of submitting a reply to the charge memo, he preferred Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to submit to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. No doubt, in come very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." The disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold unless there is a total lack of jurisdiction. 10. In the case on hand, by the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4497/A1/97, dated 12.6.1998, of the third respondent the petitioner has already been imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, for not submitting his entomological collection work in respect of Malaria fever for the period between 6/97 and 8/97. The record of proceedings in this writ petition shows that, while entertaining the Original Application, the Tribunal has granted interim stay of the disciplinary proceedings on 31.8.1999, which has been extended periodically. Since the petitioner himself had volunteered to submit his explanation to the charge memo, on receipt of a copy of the charge memo in Tamil, the interim stay granted is vacated. The respondent is directed to furnish him with a translated copy of the charge memo in Tamil, immediately and on receipt of the same, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation within two weeks thereafter. on receipt of the explanation, appropriate action may be passed as per the rules, on merits. The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs. 06.07.2009 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aes To 1.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicines, 259, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. 2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicines, (Malaria & Filaria), 259, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. S.MANIKUMAR, J. aes W.P.No.42748 of 2006 06.07.2009