Relief for government doctor after 3-year fight

CHENNAI: A government doctor, who was suspended a day prior to his date of retirement and denied benefits, got a reprieve after a legal battle of three years, with the Madras High Court quashing three GOs and directing authorities to allow him to retire from service and settle all the benefits.Justice D Hari Paranthaman allowed the petition filed by Dr A Chinnadurai and quashed the GOs, dated July 30, 2009, placing him under suspension, and July 31, 2009, not permitting him to retire from service.Following the charge of unauthorized absence, a charge memo was issued to Dr Chinnadurai and an enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, he was removed from service by a GO dated November 13, 2000. He moved the then Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, which stayed the order. While so, when he was to retire from service on July 31, 2009, the authorities issued the July 30, 2009 order placing him under suspension on the ground that the enquiry into grave charges was pending. By the July 31, 2009 order, he was not permitted to retire, until the enquiry into the grave charges was completed.The judge said the findings of the enquiry officer, based on which the petitioner was removed from service, were totally perverse. No reason was given for holding the charges as proved. In the absence of any evidence let in by the department, the findings of the enquiry officer, holding the charges as proved should be characterized as perverse. The explanations offered by the petitioner in the enquiry was also not taken note of. The report of the enquiry officer and the GO was proceeded, as if the petitioner did not give any explanation. “For all these reasons, I am of the considered view that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the GO based on such findings is liable to be quashed”, the judge added.The judge said admittedly, there was no disciplinary action pending against the petitioner, when the other two GOs were issued. Thecharge memo ended in the issuance of November 13, 2000 order. But on the day of his retirement, both the orders were passed, one placing him under suspension and other not permitting him to retire, on an erroneous basis that an enquiry was pending at that time into grave charges. Hence, both GOs were also liable to be quashed, the judge added.