The Madras High Court on Thursday set aside an order passed by Director of Medical Education (DME) on February 17 suspending Government Surgical Oncologist S. Subbiah from service for his alleged association with a political organisation, political activities, political statements and propaganda expressing disloyal sentiments in violation of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.
Justice D. Krishnakumar agreed with senior counsel Vijay Narayan that the DME was incompetent to issue such a suspension order. He pointed out that the Director could issue suspension orders only for those below the rank of Assistant Surgeons. Since the writ petitioner before the court was a professor in surgical oncology, the suspension order ought to have been passed only by the State government.
After he filed the first writ petition challenging the DME’s order on the ground of competence, a Government Order was issued on March 9 ratifying the DME’s order. Immediately, Dr. Subbiah filed another writ petition challenging the GO too. Disposing of both the petitions together, the judge quashed the G.O. too on the ground that the rules do not permit ratification of an order passed by an incompetent authority.
When the law prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body. It cannot be exercised by others unless there were provisions for delegation. “The respondents (State government and DME) are unable to substantiate by way of relevant statute that the first respondent (government) can delegate the power to the second respondent (DME) to issue the suspension order,” the judge wrote.
Further, pointing out that the DME in his counter affidavit had conceded that he was not the competent authority to issue the suspension order, the judge said: “Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the order of suspension has been passed by an incompetent authority/second respondent and its subsequent ratification by the first respondent are unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed.”
The judge directed the government to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits. He, however, gave liberty to the government to conduct the disciplinary proceedings as per procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 and conclude it within 12 weeks from the date when a charge memo gets issued to the petitioner.
“It is also made clear that in that event, the petitioner shall also extend his cooperation for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings,” the judge added.
