Allowed

K.Vijayalakshmi, v. Director of Public Health and

Madras HC6 Jun 2023WP/3343/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition against a disciplinary order removing a government employee for alleged bigamy. Relying on a recent order involving her husband, the Court quashed the punishment and directed reinstatement to ensure the petitioner could retire with honour.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.12.2017 quashed; Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner into service as Office Assistant forthwith with all service and monetary benefits.

K.Vijayalakshmi, Vs Director of Public Health and — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.3343 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

¶6

W.P.No. 3343 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.4088, 4089 of 2018 and 21482 of 2019

¶7

K.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1.Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 64/75, Main Road, Chokkalingam Nagar, Teynampet, Chennai-600 0086.

¶10

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Tamilnadu Health and family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the impugned order R.No.8945/DA/S3/11 dated 07.12.2017 issued by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner and quash the same and directing the 1^st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into the service as Office Assistant, O/o.Deputy Director of Health Services, Villupuram forthwith as if the impugned punishment was not imposed.

¶12

1/6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.No.3343 of 2018

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi for M/S.S.Varsha For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Premkumar Government Advocate

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed to call for records of the impugned

¶18

order in R.No.8945/DA/S3/11 dated 07.12.2017 issued by the 1^st respondent

¶19

to the petitioner and quash the same and directing the 1^st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into the service as Office Assistant, O/o.Deputy Director of Health Services, Villupuram forthwith as if the impugned punishment was not imposed.

¶20

2.The case of the writ petitioner is that she got employment through registration with the Employment Exchange. After a long wait, she got appointed as an Office Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Villupuram on 16.06.2009 and joined duty on 22.06.2009. Her husband passed away in the year 1992 leaving the petitioner and her three children. The petitioner's family friend, one Mohan who was also employed in the Government Service was a well wisher of the petitioner's

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.3343 of 2018

¶24

family and unfortunately, the 1^st respondent issued a Memo.R.No.8945/DA/S3/11 dated 09.05.2016 raising charges against the petitioner that she has violated Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1973 since she has entered into bigamous marriage with the said Mohan, when her spouse was alive. In respect of the said memo, the petitioner has given a detailed reply denying the serious charges levelled against her. However, the impugned order has been passed by the 1^st respondent on 07.12.2017. The 1^st respondent concurred with the enquiry officer's findings, without any application of the mind and removed the petitioner from service.

¶25

The 1^st respondent has filed a counter based on the available

¶26

materials. The enquiry went against the petitioner and there was no irregularity in the impugned order and therefore sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.3343 of 2018

¶31

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner invited the attention of

¶32

this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.14879 of 2016 dated 14.02.2023. The said writ petition has been filed by Mr.Mohan against whom allegations were levelled alongside the writ petitioner herein. The said writ petition was allowed holding that the disciplinary action initiated by the respondents against the petitioner therein were void and the said Mohan was entitled for reinstatement. It is on the very same set of allegations, charges were also levelled against the writ petitioner herein.

¶33

Thus, in view of the order passed in W.P.No.14879 of 2016 dated 14.02.2023, this writ petitioner is also entitled for reinstatement. Hence, the impugned order dated 07.12.2017 passed in R.No.8945/DA/S3/11 by the 1^st respondent is quashed and the 1^st respondent is directed to reinstate the writ petitioner into service as Office Assistant at O/o.Deputy Director of Health Services, Villupuram together with all service and monetary benefits. Considering the fact the petitioner is retiring shortly, the respondents shall take immediate steps to reinstate the writ petitioner so that she would retire with honour.

¶34

4/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.3343 of 2018

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected

¶38

miscellaneous petitions are closed. No cost.

¶39

06.06.2023

¶40

Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No nr Note:Issue order copy on 07.06.2023

¶41

¶42

1.Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 64/75, Main Road, Chokkalingam Nagar, Teynampet, Chennai-600 0086.

¶43

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Tamilnadu Health and family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶44

5/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.3343 of 2018

P.B.BALAJI, J.,

W.P.No. 3343 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.4088, 4089 of 2018 and 21482 of 2019

¶50

06.06.2023

¶51

6/6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Vijayalakshmi, v. Director of Public Health and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayalakshmi, v. Director of Public Health and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Ponnusamy Vs The Govt of Tamil Nadu

R.Poongavanam, F/a.58 Vs The Commissioner

Karunanithy Vs Union Territory of Puducherry

K.Mageswaran Vs The State rep. by

M.Palani, Jeep Driver, Vs The District Collector

Mrs.R.Banumathi Vs The Secretary to Government