1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD)No.6801 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 Tmt.T.Kumudha, Staff Nurse, Government Headquarters Hospital, Periyakulam, Theni District. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-09. 2.The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6. 3.The Joint Director of Health Services, Usilampatti Government Hospital, Usilampatti, Madurai District. : Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in G.O(D)No.229, Health and Family Welfare (K2) Department, dated 10.03.2011 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition, challenging the impugned order made in G.O.(D)No.229, Health and Family Welfare (K2) Department, dated 10.03.2011 of the first respondent. 4. In and by the said order, the petitioner was imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 cumulative effect. The said order is under challenge in the Writ Petition on the ground that no independent reasons have been given for coming to conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges made against her and that such punishment has to be imposed on her. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the appellate authority, viz., the first respondent has to give independent reasons for imposing punishment on the petitioner. Except saying that the charges made against the petitioner have been proved on the basis of the enquiry report, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no independent reasons have been given. 6. Though the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought to support the order, he is unable to point out from the impugned order that the first respondent has given reasons for inflicting punishment on the petitioner. 7. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the first respondent has not given any reason whatsoever, to punish the petitioner, on the charges made against her. 9. While going through the impugned order, one could see that except extracting the charges, the explanation offered by the petitioner and the report of the Enquiry Officer, no independent reasons have been given by the first respondent. It would be useful to extract the operative portion of the order, which is extracted hereunder: "3. The Government have examined the charges framed against Tmt.P.Kumutha, her defence statement, the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the further representation of the delinquent officer carefully and independently with all connected records and held the charge 1 as partly proved and remaining three charges as not proved against the delinquent officer. For the partly proven charge the Government have decided to impose a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect on Tmt.T.Kumutha. The Government accordingly do and hereby order that the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect be imposed on Tmt.T.Kumutha, Staff Nurse, Government Headquarters Hospital, Periyakulam for the partly proven charge." Thus, the above extracted order would disclose that the first respondent has not given any independent reason to come to the conclusion that the charges made against the petitioner are proved and that the punishment has to be awarded to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above stated position, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent dated 10.03.2011 and accordingly, set aside and the Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. It is needless to say that if the second respondent is intending to take up the matter and pass orders afresh, it is open to the second respondent to do so, after due notice to the petitioner, by giving independent reasons https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 for inflicting the punishment. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai-09. 2.The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6. 3.The Joint Director of Health Services, Usilampatti Government Hospital, Usilampatti, Madurai District. +1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 20678 +1. CC to Mr.T.Lajpathiy Roy, Advocate, SR.No. 20546 SML Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6801 of 2011 Dated:- 28.06.2011 TR : 14.07.2011 : 3p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/