IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.No.1192 of 2006 And W.p.M.p.No.581 2006 1. Mrs. Logammal 2. Mrs. Karuraal 3. Mrs. Chennammal 4. Mrs. Kaliammal ... Petitioners Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu By the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2. The Commissioner, Pennagaram Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District .... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the replies dated 29.09.2003, submitted by the petitioners for the Charge dated 18.09.2003 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, with regard to the re-instatement of the petitioner within the time to be fixed. For Petitioner : M/s. Lenin & Bhagya For Respondent : Mr. P. Subramani (AGP)for R1 Mr.S.V. Duraisolal Malai For R2. ORDER The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the reply submitted by the petitioners on 29.09.2003 for the charge memo dated 18.09.2003 in accordance with law. The petitioners were all employed as Senior cooks and assistant cooks in the noon meal centre of Government High School, Mangarai. They were issued with notice dated 16.08.2003 wherein it is stated that, about 530 students had consumed the meals and out of them 55 students developed problems and were admitted to a Government Hospital as in-patients. Subsequently, the charge memo came to be issued against the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that adequate precautions were not taken by the petitioners resulting in food poison and the children who had consumed the food had become seriously ill. Since the lapse committed was serious in nature, the petitioners were placed under suspension with effect from 16.03.2003. 3. Having considered the submissions on either side, I am of the view that the second respondent, having issued a charge memo and given the liberty to the petitioners to submit their explanation, is required to pass final orders in the matter or if the rule contemplates an enquiry to be conducted in the matter to proceed in accordance with law. Hence there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioners reply dated 29.09.2003 to the charge memo, submitted by the petitioners for the Charge dated 18.09.2003 with in a period of three months. 4. In result, the writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No Costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar prm To 1. The District Collector, State of Tamil Nadu Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 2. The Commissioner, Pennagaram Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri. 1 cc To M.s,Lenin Bhagya, Advocate, SR.2500 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO.2532 W.P.No.1192 of 2006 And W.p.M.p.No.581 2006 DM(CO) sra 22.01.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/