Dr.Anu Gayathri v. State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counselfor the petitioner. When there is any misconduct committed by aGovernment Servant under his control, it is always open to thefirst respondent to proceed against the third respondent as andwhen he decides on material…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 13.11.2007CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIW.P.No.24002 of 2007andM.P.No.1 of 2007Dr.Anu GayathriPetitionervs.
State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
Dr.T.P.Kalanidhi, Dean, Madras Medical College and Hospital, Chennai 600 003. RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the firstrespondent to consider the representation dated 4.7.2007 of thepetitioner and to pass appropriate orders to rescue the thirdrespondent from holding the post of Dean, Madras Medical Collegeand Hospital or any other Government Medical Colleges and Institutions in Chennai or Chengalpet Medical College and Hospitaluntil the disposal of the Criminal Case in C.C.No.3260 of 2007pending on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. For petitioner: Mr.N.S.NandakumarFor respondents: Mr.N.Senthilkumar, G.A. (W). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThe writ petition is filed for a direction to consider therepresentation dated 4.7.2007 and to rescue the third respondentfrom holding the post of Dean, Madras Medical College and Hospitalor any other Government Medical Colleges and Institutions in Chennai or Chengalpet Medical College and Hospital until thedisposal of the Criminal Case in C.C.No.3260 of 2007 pending on thefile of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.2.
The case of the petitioner is that she was married to theson of the third respondent and there was some dispute between thepetitioner and the son of the third respondent and a criminal casehas been filed against the son of the third respondent as well asthe third respondent in C.C.No.3260 of 2007 under Dowry ProhibitionAct and the same is pending. The petitioner's further case is thatthe criminal case is at the stage where P.Ws.11 and 12 are to beexamined as witnesses. The said witnesses are the persons studyingunder the third respondent who is working as Dean in Madras MedicalCollege and therefore, the anticipation of the petitioner is thatthe said witnesses may not give correct evidence and also giveevidence in favour of the third respondent under whom they arestudying. In view of the same, the representation is made to thefirst respondent, who is the employer of the third respondent totake action against the third respondent preventing him from actingas Dean of Madras Medical College or Dean of any other Colleges in Chingleput and Chennai.
3. Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner would submit that even though the prayer in the writpetition is to rescue the third respondent from holding the post of Dean, Madras Medical College and Hospital or any other GovernmentMedical Colleges and Institutions in Chennai or Chengalpet MedicalCollege and Hospital until the disposal of the Criminal Case inC.C.No.3260 of 2007, his further representation also containsvarious averments and hence, it is open to the first respondent totake disciplinary action as per the Tamil Nadu Government ServantsConduct Rules, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner furthersubmits that Rule 3A of the said Rules enables the Government totake disciplinary action against any person who give or take abetthe giving or taking of dowry.
Rule 3A of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants ConductRules, 1973 reads as follows:-"No Government servant shall --(i) give or take abet the giving or taking ofdowry; or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) demand, directly or indirectly, from theparents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom asthe case may be any dowry. Explanation – For the purposes of this rule, dowry has the same meaning as in the DowryProhibition Act, 1961 (Central Act 28 of 1961)."Therefore, according to the counsel for petitioner, the thirdrespondent, being one of the accused and father-in-law of thepetitioner, is an abettor and on the basis of which, the firstrespondent, being employer, has got a duty to take disciplinaryactin against the third respondent.
I do not agree with the contentions of the learned counselfor the petitioner. When there is any misconduct committed by aGovernment Servant under his control, it is always open to thefirst respondent to proceed against the third respondent as andwhen he decides on material facts that, prima facie, materials areavailable to proceed against him and not for this court, whileexercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct him to take action. The writ petition fails andthe same stands dismissed. No costs. The connected MiscellaneousPetition is also dismissed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ssk. To1. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 1 cc to Mr.N.S. Nandakumar, and S. Prabhu, Sr. 677061 cc to Government Pleader, Sr,67404 W.P.No.24002/2007SJ (CO)kk 21/11
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.