Responsive image

R.Murugan vs The Director Of Public Health on 15 October, 2009

Madras High Court
R.Murugan vs The Director Of Public Health on 15 October, 2009



DATED: 15.10.2009
34983,33648,34381 to 34385 of 2006
(O.A.Nos.7915, 9036, 9037, 9038, 9039,
10313, 10021 to 10025 of 1998)

W.P.No.35153 of 2006

R.Murugan			                ... Petitioner  


1.The Director of Public Health
   and Preventive Medicine,
  Madras -6.

2.The Deputy Director of Health Services,
  Sivaganga. 	 ... Respondents

Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.4497/A1/97 dated 12.06.98 and quash the order passed therein.
		For Petitioners:  Mr.R.Ravi
		For Respondents:  Mr.R.Neelakantan,G.A.	

C O M M O N  O R D E R
	The petitioners were working as Laboratory Assistants in various Primary Health Centres in the Sivagangai District. During their tenure in the Primary Health Centre, they were asked to furnish vector density monitor reports for the month of June 1997 to August 1997. But they did not submit their feedback reports, which resulted in the Director not able to identify the disease spreading factors, namely, mosquitoes present in the area. Such reports were necessary to take preventive measures to control the outbreak and also to take remedial measures. 

	2. Since the petitioners refuse to do the work, disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioners under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules. After notice, the petitioners were issued with the punishment order dated 12.06.1998 for the misconduct committed by them and they were imposed with the penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said punishment to the first respondent - Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Before the appeal could be disposed of, the petitioners moved the Tribunal with the original applications, challenging the original order of punishment. Pending the Original Applications, the petitioners did not have the benefit of any interim order. 

	3. On notice from the Tribunal, the first respondent has filed a reply affidavit dated Nil (2001) justifying the imposition of penalty. In paragraphs 11 and 12, it  was averred as follows:
"11. It is submitted that the contention of the applicants in their explanations does not relate to the charge memo dated 8.12.97 issued by the second respondent.
The charge framed against the applicants was that they had failed to furnish vector Density monitoring reports for the months from June 1997 to August 1997. The applicants instead of explaining the reasons for not furnishing the reports, have merely stated in their explanations that since their Association has filed an O.A before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal they should not be forced to do mosquito collection work.
12.Regarding the averment of the applicants in Ground 2 it is submitted that the 2nd respondent (i.e.) Deputy Director of Health Services Sivaganga has duly considered the explanations given by the applicants, and since their explanations were not relevant to the charge memo dated 8.12.97 and the reasons are unacceptable, the second respondent has imposed the punishment of Stoppage of increment on the applicants."

	4. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matters stood transferred to this Court and were renumbered as W.P.Nos.35153, 33760, 34988, 34977,34983, 33648, 34381 to 34385 of 2006.

	5. The only contention raised by the petitioners was that it was not the duty of the Laboratory Assistants to do mosquito collection. It has to be done by the Field Assistant, which overlooks the fact that the post of Field Assistant is a feeder category to the post of Lab Assistant and in the Primary Health Centres, there was no post of Field Assistant. In the reply affidavit, it was stated that the post of Lab Assistant post can be interchangeable between the Primary Health Centre at the Primary Health Centre Level and the Zonal Entomological Teams at the Zonal level and in the Central Malaria Laboratory at the Directorate.  Persons posted at the Zonal Entomological Teams or Central Malaria Laboratory will be bound to do the same work. In the Operational Guidelines for implementation of National Malaria Eradicaton Programme (N.M.E.P) (Rural) under the modified plan lists out duties of Laboratory Assistants and it contains that they should have a training in entomological work including identification of mosquitoes.

	6. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, the writ petitions are misconceived. Accordingly, the same will stand dismissed. No costs.


Index : Yes/No


1.The Director of Public Health
   and Preventive Medicine,
  Madras -6.

2.The Deputy Director of Health Services,



to 34385 of 2006
9039,10313,10021 to 10025/1998)


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information