Judgment :- 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2010, imposing the punishment of cut of of Rs.2,000/-per month from the pension amount to be paid to the petitioner for a period of two years, for the charges framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 2. The factual scenario of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition is to be narrated as hereunder: 2.1. The petitioner was working as Senior Civil Surgeon, ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram, Chennai. A surgery was conducted by the petitioner on 08.06.2006 on a patient by name, Tmt.T.Stella, who is the insured person, diagnosed as incisional Hernia. The said patient, Tmt.T.Stella alleged that she was suffering from severe stomach pain, vomiting and head-ache for 5 days. On such complaint of pain, the said Tmt.T.Stella was referred by the petitioner on 13.06.2006 to the Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. On the same day i.e., on 13.06.2006, the said Tmt.T.Stella underwent operation conducted by one Dr.Tamilselvan attached to the Government General Hospital, Chennai as the patient Tmt.T.Stella suffered post operative complications. 2.2. Subsequently, a consumer complaint was preferred by the said Tmt.T.Stella during the month of February 2008 in C.C.No.30/2008 before the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai and in the said complaint, both the petitioner as well as the third respondent filed their counters, denying the allegations levelled by the said patient Tmt.T.Stella, stating that the said patient has not followed the instructions given by the doctor and she has only going on her own way against doctors advise. It was further stated in the counter filed by the third respondent herein, who was cited as second respondent in the said complaint before the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai, that the Discharge Summary was also issued on 13.06.2006 from the ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram Chennai and on 30.06.2006 from the Government General Hospital, Chennai and again on 10.07.2006 from the ESI Hospital. In the said counter it was also specifically stated that during second surgery, no suture was found in the intestine, otherwise, the Surgeon who had operated would have definitely mentioned the same in the Discharge Summary. The said counter was filed by the third respondent in the month of July 2008. 2.3. In the said counter it was also specifically stated that during second surgery, no suture was found in the intestine, otherwise, the Surgeon who had operated would have definitely mentioned the same in the Discharge Summary. The said counter was filed by the third respondent in the month of July 2008. 2.3. Ultimately, the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai dismissed the complaint preferred by the said Tmt.T.Stella on 17.09.2008. As against the said dismissal, the complainant, namely, Tmt.T.Stella preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Forum in F.A.No.747/2008 and the State Consumer Forum remanded the matter to the District Consumer Forum on 26.08.2011 and the same is pending as on date. 2.4. Prior to subsequent development in respect of filing the complaint by the said Tmt.T.Stella before the District Consumer Forum, North Chennai, the petitioner has been served with a charge memo dated 28.05.2008 in respect of negligence said to have been committed by the petitioner during the course of conducting surgery on 08.06.2006 and the said charge memo does not disclose on whose complaint or on what basis, the said charge memo was issued against the petitioner. The charges as per the annexure contained in the charge memo dated 28.05.2008 is as follows: “Charge: That you Dr.R.Kannapiran, M.S., Senior Civil Surgeon, ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram, Chennai 23 who has done surgery to the patient Tmt.T.Stella who is the Insured Person (IP No.51-30952432) on 8.6.06 diagnosed as incisional Herinia, and after the surgery done by you, the Insured person Tmt.T.Stella suffered with severe pain in the stomach and vomiting and head ache for five days and felt as if she was dying and no test either X-ray, ECG or Scan was taken to analyse the problem of the patient. Only after five days after the surgery i.e., on 12.6.06 you and other doctors realized that some missing has been done in the surgery and the very next day on 13.6.06 they referred the patient to Government General Hospital, Chennai for further treatment. The same day itself she was operated, since the part of the intestine was negligently sutured together in the previous surgery done by you due to which the complications arised leading to next surgery conducted at Government General Hospital, Chennai-3 within a five days gap, resulting in the removal of 30 centimeters of intestine in which a gangrene has said to have been developed. You Dr.P.Kannapiran have produced the case sheet very belatedly on 28.5.08 which lead to the delay, now the above Insured person has claimed a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs towards the physical loss suffered by her due to your negligence in performing the surgery.” As per Annexure-III, List of Documents were furnished and one among the said document is the Case Sheet mentioned as Sl.No.1 of the petitioner in respect of conducting surgery on the above said Tmt.T.Stella. 2.5. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 05.06.2008. Pursuant to the issue of charge memo and the explanation given by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and it is reported by the Enquiry Officer that the main charge of negligence alleged against the petitioner while conducting surgery was not proved and only the charge framed against the petitioner in respect of delay in sending the case records held to have been proved. 2.6. The petitioner was served with the Enquiry Report with a letter of the first respondent dated 09.07.2010, stating that the Government disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and taken a deviated view to the effect that the charges were held to have been proved and called upon the petitioner to give his further explanation. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the second representation dated 18.07.2010 and also prayed for appropriate order for allowing him to retire from the Government service with all service and monetary benefits. 2.7. The first respondent issued an order dated 19.08.2010 revoking the suspension order by allowing the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.05.2008 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. In the same proceedings dated 19.08.2010, the first respondent also stated that it was proposed to impose punishment of pension cut of Rs.2,000/-per month for a period of two years from the pensional benefits of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.08.2010, specifically stating that he is not accepting the proposed punishment. Thereafter, the first respondent obtained the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and passed an order dated 30.09.2010 imposing the punishment of cut of Rs.2,000/- per month from the pensional amount of the petitioner for a period of two years. Being aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition is filed with the above said prayer. 3. Thereafter, the first respondent obtained the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and passed an order dated 30.09.2010 imposing the punishment of cut of Rs.2,000/- per month from the pensional amount of the petitioner for a period of two years. Being aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition is filed with the above said prayer. 3. Mr.G.Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and put forward the following contentions: (i) The charge itself is vague and not specific and as such, the entire proceedings is vitiated. (ii) The main charge is to the effect that a part of the intestine was negligently sutured together during the course of surgery conducted by the petitioner on Tmt.T.Stella which necessitated second surgery by the Surgeon attached to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, but the Surgeon Dr.Tamilselvan who has conducted the second surgery has not found any suture in the intestine and as such, the Enquiry Officer has rightly given the report that the said charge was not proved and the first respondent has wrongly taken the deviated view to the effect that the said charge was proved against the petitioner without any evidence. (iii) The Disciplinary Authority without assigning any valid reason has taken the deviated view holding that the main charge is also proved and even before affording opportunity to the petitioner, has come to the conclusion of imposing the punishment of cut of Rs.2,000/- per month from the pensional benefits of the petitioner and as such, the impugned order was passed with a predetermined mind and on that ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. (iv) The first respondent based its findings on the basis of the views obtained from the TNPSC behind the back of the petitioner for imposing the punishment on the petitioner without even serving the said copies of the opinion of the TNPSC by affording opportunity to the petitioner and as such, the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. (v) The findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority regarding the second part of the charge that there was a delay in sending the case records relating to the patient Tmt.T.Stella, holding that the said charge was proved, is also not on the basis of any evidence available on record and the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are erroneous on the face of the record. (vi) The charge memo dated 28.05.2008 itself contains the list of documents mentioning the case records relating to Tmt.T.Stella and as such, it is clear that the said case records are already with the authorities concerned and the same was not withheld by the petitioner herein. The said factor is also substantiated by the letter written by the petitioner dated 07.06.2008, wherein it was specifically stated that the fourth respondent has already received the case records on 19.10.2006 from the Record Section and as such, it cannot be stated that the said records were with the possession of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein. It is contended that there is no ambiguity in the charge and the charge is very clear to the effect that the petitioner said to have sutured a part of the intestine together during the course of surgery conducted by him on 08.06.2006 on one patient Tmt.T.Stella. It is further contended that the patient, namely, Tmt.T.Stella complained severe stomach pain soon after the surgery and she was not taken care of by the petitioner herein who has conducted the surgery and as per the records, the negligence committed by the petitioner resulted in post operative complications which necessitated second surgery to be conducted by the Surgeon attached to the Government General Hospital, Chennai. In view of the second surgery and in view of the post operative complications, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly held that the main charge was proved against the petitioner apart from the other part of the charge, namely, delay in submitting the case records relating to the patient Tmt.T.Stella. In view of the second surgery and in view of the post operative complications, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly held that the main charge was proved against the petitioner apart from the other part of the charge, namely, delay in submitting the case records relating to the patient Tmt.T.Stella. It is pointed out that in the reply to the counter filed in this petition, the petitioner himself stated that he had submitted the Case Sheet on 28.05.2008 as per his promise made in the letter dated 26.05.2008 and therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the case sheet was not with him. It is contended that in view of the delay in sending the case records relating to the patient Tmt.T.Stella, the petitioner has committed dereliction of duty which affected the interest of the patient Tmt.T.Stella and therefore, both the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority rightly held that the second part of the charge held to have been proved. 5. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and scrutinized the entire materials available on record and perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents including the impugned order. 6. This is a very unfortunate case wherein a qualified doctor who was attached to the ESI Hospital, Ayanavaram, Chennai and who was having 27 years of unblemished record of service has been served with a charge memo dated 28.05.2008, on 29.05.2008 at the fag end of his retirement and that too, a day before he reaching the age of superannuation on 30.05.2008. The petitioner was served with the above said charge memo not permitting him to retire, pending disciplinary proceedings. Pursuant to the issue of charge memo and subsequently, after the petitioner filing two writ petitions before this Court, the petitioner was allowed to retire on 19.08.2010 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The perusal of the charge memo dated 28.05.2008 reveals that the said charge memo issued in respect of the surgery conducted by the petitioner on Tmt.T.Stella as early as on 08.06.2006 and there is absolutely no explanation for such a delay of two years in issuing the charge memo. The perusal of the charge memo dated 28.05.2008 reveals that the said charge memo issued in respect of the surgery conducted by the petitioner on Tmt.T.Stella as early as on 08.06.2006 and there is absolutely no explanation for such a delay of two years in issuing the charge memo. Apart from the said factor, the charge memo dated 28.05.2008 does not disclose on what basis or on whose complaint, proceedings were initiated by issuing the said charge memo. 7. It is seen that along with the charge memo, as per Annexure-III, three documents have been mentioned as List of Documents by which charges were framed against the petitioner. The above said List of Documents does not reveal the opinion or report submitted by the doctor attached to the Government General Hospital, who has conducted the second surgery on the patient Tmt.T.Stella. Among the three documents mentioned in Annexure-III, first document is the Case Sheet of the petitioner, second document is the complaint preferred by Tmt.T.Stella before the District Consumer Forum and those two documents are within the knowledge of the petitioner. As far as the third document, namely, the letter dated 21.05.2008 of the Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Chennai, namely, the fourth respondent herein, the said document was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply dated 18.07.2010 for the show-cause notice dated 09.07.2010 sent to him along with the Inquiry Report has clearly stated that he was not furnished with the documents of evidence exhibited to the charge memo. The said ground of non-furnishing of documents raised by the petitioner in his reply is stated in the present petition also. There is no indication or any averment made in the charge memo as to on what basis, the charges as stated above, have been framed against the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charges levelled against the petitioner as per the charge memo is not only vague but also on the face of it, baseless. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charges levelled against the petitioner as per the charge memo is not only vague but also on the face of it, baseless. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr reported in 2011 (5) CTC 564, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder: "7.A plain reading of the charges and the statement of imputations reproduced above would show that only vague allegations were made against the appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was misappropriated by him and others. The details of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the Appellant have not been mentioned. 8....... 9. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of Bengal [ 1970 (3) SCC 548 ] : "5.The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstances which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him." 10. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him." 10. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India & Ors v. Gyan Chand Chattar [ 2009 (12) SCC 78 ] and in para 35 of the judgment as reported in the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and Principles of Natural Justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges." The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also, there is no specific and definite allegation made against the petitioner and it is also not stated as to on what basis charges were framed against the petitioner and as such, this Court is of the considered view that the entire proceedings is vitiated. 9. Apart from the vagueness of the charge as already pointed out and held by this Court, it is pertinent to note that the main charge levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner conducted surgery on Tmt.T.Stella on 08.06.2006 and during the course of surgery he has negligently sutured the part of the intestine together which was alleged to have been found during the second surgery conducted by the Surgeon attached to the Government General Hospital, Chennai. The fact remains that there is absolutely no material available on record to make out a prima facie case to allege that the petitioner had sutured the part of the intestine together during the course of the surgery conducted by him on Tmt.T.Stella. It is relevant to note that the Surgeon Dr.Tamilselvan has not stated that he has found that the intestines were sutured and on the other hand, he has clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the intestines were not sutured. It is relevant to note that the Surgeon Dr.Tamilselvan has not stated that he has found that the intestines were sutured and on the other hand, he has clearly stated before the Enquiry Officer that the intestines were not sutured. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the main charge levelled against the petitioner to the effect that during the course of surgery conducted on the patient Tmt.T.Stella, the petitioner has sutured the part of the intestines together, is not supported by any evidence and as such, the Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the said charge was not proved against the petitioner. 10. The first respondent who has taken a deviated view from the view taken by the Enquiry Officer, as per his proceedings dated 09.07.2010, has not at all assigned any valid reason for taking such deviated view to the effect that the main charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved. The reasons for holding the charge as proved, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as per the annexure to the proceedings dated 09.07.2010 does not disclose any concrete or definite evidence, on which the first respondent has taken the deviated view. The reasons are only based on presumptions and assumptions without any evidence available on record. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority to the effect that the main charge held to have been proved against the delinquent officer, namely, the petitioner herein, is nothing but a patently erroneous and perverse finding. 11. Now coming to the second part of the charge to the effect that the petitioner herein had produced the Case Sheet belatedly on 28.05.2008, which led to the delay, resulting in the complainant claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs on the ground of negligence in performing the surgery, it is to be stated that the Disciplinary Authority has not placed any definite and concrete evidence to render the finding to the effect that the said charge also alleged to have been proved against the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to reiterate that in the charge memo dated 28.05.2008 itself, it is mentioned in the annexure to the List of Documents that the case sheet of the petitioner relating to the surgery conducted on Tmt.T.Stella was listed as Document No.1, which clearly shows that the case sheet was already with the possession of the authorities and by no stretch of imagination it could be held that there is any delay in producing the said case sheet by the petitioner. It is needless to state that the said document, namely, Case Sheet or case record should be only in the possession of the Record Section of the ESI Hospital and the doctors cannot keep them in their own custody as the case sheet should be available for any emergent situation and more particularly, the said patient Tmt.T.Stella undergone treatment in the very same ESI Hospital for a period of five days and thereafter, shifted to Government General Hospital, Chennai. 12. It is not the case of the respondents that the Case Sheet contains some adverse reports against the petitioner, namely, the delinquent officer and there is absolutely no reason for the petitioner to withhold the Case Sheet or Case Record of the patient, namely, Tmt.T.Stella. As already pointed out that the charge itself is vague and not specific and above all, the same is baseless and as such, even assuming that the said Case Sheet was produced belatedly, the respondents cannot allege any willful and deliberate lapse on the part of the petitioner. 13. There is yet another infirmity and illegality found in passing the impugned order, which cannot be brushed aside. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the first respondent has placed reliance on the views of the TNPSC obtained by the first respondent behind the back of the petitioner but the said views of the TNPSC was not furnished to the petitioner and as such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.N.Narula v. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 591 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder: “6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.N.Narula v. Union of India and Others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 591 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder: “6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the report of the Union Public Service Commission was not communicated to the appellant before the final order was passed. Therefore, the appellant was unable to make an effective representation before the disciplinary authority as regards the punishment imposed. 7. We find that the stand taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal was correct and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant be finally disposed of in accordance with the direction given by the Tribunal in para 6 of the order. The appellant may submit a representation within two weeks to the disciplinary authority and we make it clear that the matter shall be finally disposed of by the disciplinary authority within a period of 3 months thereafter.” The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in this case also, this Court held that the copy of the views of the TNPSC was not furnished to the petitioner. 14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 30.09.2010 vide G.O. (D).No.969, Health and Family Welfare (K1) Department, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the respondents are hereby directed to refund the amount already deducted from the pension amount paid to the petitioner @ Rs.2,000/- every month from the date of infliction of punishment on the petitioner and all other arrears of retiral benefits, if any, and all other attendant benefits including the designation. The above said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.