IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 05..02..2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 9409 of 2002 and W.M.P. No. 12735 of 2002 D. Rajamma ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Director of Social Welfare Chepauk, Chennai 2. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Chennai ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in pursuant to the order dated 08.11.2001 passed in O.A. No. 5817 of 1999 on the file of the Tribunal. For Petitioner : Mr. S.M. Subramaniam For Respondent 1 : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GP ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.CHANDRU, J.) Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the first respondent and have perused the records. 2. The writ petitioner was employed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in Project I in Royapuram under the Social Welfare Department. She was charge-sheeted with a charge-memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [for short, 'Rules']. The charge as against the petitioner was that she was having Telugu as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ her mother tongue and, therefore, she should have passed the language test, viz., Tamil, before the completion of her probation period, ie., within three years, viz., period of probation. It is stated that she could not pass the language test within five years and, therefore, the charges were made in terms of Rule 12(A)(b) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services. It is this charge memo which was under challenge before the Tribunal. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has been employed from 08.6.1983 and she had worked for 16 years and her mother tongue was Telugu. By now, the petitioner must be 53 years old and she has only 5 years of service. The petitioner by now worked for 25 years and she claims that she has no difficulty in dealing with the patients and her understanding and spoken Tamil was very good. Even in the test conducted, the petitioner did very well and only in the viva voce, she was given a very confusing question for which she could not answer and if the charge-memo is allowed to fructify to an enquiry, she may be removed from service and for this, the petitioner need not have been proceeded under Rule 17(b) of the Rules. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner had put in 25 years of service and also claims to have proficiency in spoken Tamil, we do not think that the respondent should proceed with the charge-memo under Rule 17(b) of the Rules against her. The petitioner had not passed the Tamil test as required under Rule 12 (A) of the General Rules for which the respondent can deny her increment until she passes the language test. Even otherwise, they can write to the Government to grant necessary exemption to the petitioner as a special case. 5. Under the above circumstances, we find that though the Tribunal had correctly found that the charge-memo was issued after 16 years of service but did not grant any relief. We are of the view that in order to render proper justice, the charge-memo impugned before the Tribunal, has to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. It is open to the first respondent to write to the Government to grant appropriate exemption to the petitioner in complying with Rule 12(A) of the General Rules. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Director of Social Welfare Chepauk, Chennai 1 cc To Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, Advocate, SR.5340. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.5686. W.P. No. 9409 of 2002 RA(CO) RVL 14.03.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/