Judgment :- The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Charge Memo issued by the second respondent/Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai in his proceedings Ref.No.90894/SCI/2/93-1, dated 22.7.1995. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner joined as Assistant Surgeon through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1986. When she was working as Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Thiruppattur, one patient, viz., Vijaya was brought to the hospital with labour pain at 6.20 a.m. on 24.9.1993. The Duty Doctor did not attend her. As a result, the Staff Nurse took the patient to the Labour Ward. Thereafter, the petitioner joined duty at 7.30 a.m. and examined the patient Vijaya at 8.00 a.m. While examining the said patient, she found that there was some mild "Cephalo Pelvic Disproportion". Therefore, she advised the Staff Nurse to give trial labour by giving Syntocinon drips for normal delivery. While she was watching the patient, the Medical Officer instructed her to perform four Family Planning Operations. Before leaving for operation, she examined the patient Vijaya and found that the treatment which was given to her did not give any progress. Therefore, she advised the Staff Nurse to stop the drips and prepare the patient for operation and send the patient to the operation theatre. Thereafter, she went to the operation theater at 10.30 a.m. as per the direction given by the Medical Officer. 3. It was further submitted that, while the petitioner was in the operation theater, she enquired about the condition of the patient Vijaya two times. She was informed that the patient was not yet prepared for operation and as and when the patient is prepared, the patient would be sent to the operation theater. The petitioner, after completing the four Family Planning Operations, came to the Ward in which, the patient Vijaya was admitted at 1.15 p.m. and advised the Staff Nurse to give adequate care and she went for lunch at 1.30 p.m. All of a sudden, during the lunch hour, she was informed by phone call that the patient Vijaya had breathing problem. Immediately, she attended the patient Vijaya, but she lost her breathing at 2.45 p.m. 4. Immediately, she attended the patient Vijaya, but she lost her breathing at 2.45 p.m. 4. It was further submitted that the preliminary enquiry was conducted and they found that the Staff Nurse Tmt.Kasthuri and Midwife Tmt.Rajeswari were responsible for the death of the patient and charges were also framed against them. They have been given a punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. After two years, the petitioner has been given a charge memo dated 22.7.1995 for the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1993 stating that she was also responsible for the death of the patient ignoring the preliminary enquiry report. Thereafter, she has submitted her detailed explanation. Domestic enquiry has been ordered to be conducted. Before participating in the enquiry, the petitioner has requested the authorities concerned to furnish certain documents relating to the charges i.e. the statement given by the attendant of the patient and preliminary enquiry report so that, she would be in a position to participate in the enquiry. But, her request to furnish certain documents was refused. However, without furnishing those documents, an Enquiry Offier was appointed to go into the charges and the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.4.2001 along with the report of the Enquiry Officer asking her to submit explanation. Subsequently, when she submitted her written explanation on 11.7.2001, she has brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority that enquiry has been conducted without furnishing the requisite documents, which have been sought for by her and she was forced to participate in the said enquiry and it has caused huge prejudice to her. Accepting this irregularity in the enquiry the Disciplinary Authority finally also cancelled the proceedings by the order dated 22.9.2005, therefore, it was pleaded, the Subsequent issuance of Charge Memo, which is impugned herein, is unwarranted. 5. Finally, it was pleaded that when two other Staff were found responsible for the death of the patient Vijaya and punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was also imposed on them, after two years of the said occurrence, the issuance of charge memo against the petitioner is illegal and impermissible. 5. Finally, it was pleaded that when two other Staff were found responsible for the death of the patient Vijaya and punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was also imposed on them, after two years of the said occurrence, the issuance of charge memo against the petitioner is illegal and impermissible. On this basis, he has prayed for allowing the writ petition by quashing the belated charge memo issued against the petitioner. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 7. Per contra, it was pleaded by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that when the charge memo was issued on 22.7.1995, the petitioner by the letter dated 18.09.1995 requested to give certain records relating to the preliminary enquiry on the ground that the records were not furnished to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry on the petitioner and other two delinquent officers without furnishing the documents asked for, and submitted the enquiry report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner and two others were proved. The punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was imposed on the two others viz., Tmt.P.Kasthuri Bai and Tmt.P.Rajeswari. But, in respect of the petitioner, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, was consulted for its views. Thereafter, for giving opportunity to the petitioner, he was furnished with the records called for by her. She has also informed through her letter dated 28.03.2005 that she has received the preliminary enquiry report along with the deposition made by the attendant of the patient Vijaya. Hence, the disciplinary action was restarted. The Joint Director of Health Services, Kancheepuram was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the order dated 22.09.2005 passed by the second respondent. But, the Enquiry Officer has not commenced the enquiry due to work pressure and administrative reasons. 8. It was further submitted that after completing the enquiry, when she filed the second written statement, she brought some infirmities to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority took note of the fact that the petitioner was not afforded fair and reasonable opportunity and cancelled the entire proceedings by the order dated 22.9.2005 and issued a fresh charge memo. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the fresh charge memo was issued at the belated stage for the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1993. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that the fresh charge memo was issued at the belated stage for the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1993. 9. I agree with the submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is not the case that for the first time, the respondents have issued a charge memo dated 22.7.1995. When the petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 22.7.1995, she has given her explanation. When the second show cause notice was issued to her on 26.4.2001 asking her to submit the explanation, she has submitted her second written explanation on 11.7.2001 to the Disciplinary Authority informing that the documents requested by her were not given to her and she was compelled to participate in the enquiry. Fairly accepting the case of the petitioner that there was a flaw in the enquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority cancelled the entire proceedings for the purpose of giving a fair chance to the petitioner. Therefore, when the second respondent has issued a fresh charge memo calling upon the petitioner to attend the enquiry at this stage, it does not call for any interference and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, hence, the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, WPMP No.40848 of 2005 and WVMP No.665 of 2006 are closed. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has requested this Court to direct the second respondent to expedite the enquiry and finish the same as early as possible, as the petitioner has already retired on 20.6.2012 with the permission granted by the respondent. Therefore, this Court directs the second respondent, Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai to conduct fresh enquiry as expeditiously as possible and complete the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on completion of the said fresh enquiry, the second respondent is further directed to pass an appropriate order within a period of six weeks thereafter.