WP/33846/2023 of dr.REMYA KRISHNAN Vs THE CHAIRMAN on 15 September 2026

1. The Chairman, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College, Society (PKMCS), Chief Secretariat, Puducherry- 605 001.

2. The Secretary to Government (Health) Cum Vice Chairman, (Disciplinary Authority) Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road, White Town, Puducherry - 605 001.

3. The Member Secretary (PKMCS) Director, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

4. The Administrative Officer (PKMCS) Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

5. The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry - 673311. ..Respondents WP No. 33929 of 2023 {HCMA012150492023} Dr. Rajkumar KC S/o.AKC Warrier, Associate Professor, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry- 673 311. ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Chairman, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College, Society (PKMCS), Chief Secretariat, Puducherry- 605 001.

2. The Secretary to Government (Health) Cum Vice Chairman, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road, White Town,

Puducherry - 605 001.

3. The Member Secretary (PKMCS) Director, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

4. The Administrative Officer (PKMCS) Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

5. The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry - 673311. ..Respondents

{HCMA010081502024} Dr.Remya Krishnan W/o.Dr.Rajkumar KC, Associate Professor, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry- 673 311. ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Chairman, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College, Society (PKMCS),

Chief Secretariat, Puducherry- 605 001.

2. The Secretary to Government (Health) Cum Vice Chairman, (Disciplinary Authority) Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road, White Town, Puducherry - 605 001.

3. The Member Secretary (PKMCS) Director, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

4. Dr.Ramachandra Bhat, Dean, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry Cum-Inquiry Officer.

5. Dr.Kubersankh The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry - 673311. ..Respondents

{HCMA010080502024} Dr.Rajkumar KC S/o.AKC Warrier, Associate Professor, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar

Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry- 673 311. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Chairman, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College, Society (PKMCS), Chief Secretariat, Puducherry- 605 001.

2. The Secretary to Government (Health) Cum Vice Chairman, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society,, Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road, White Town, Puducherry - 605 001.

3. The Member Secretary (PKMCS) Director, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

4. Dr.Ramachandra Bhat, Dean cum – Inquiry Officer, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry.

5. Dr.Kubersankh The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry - 673311. ..Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in Impugned Memorandum of Charges dated 11.07.2023 for the proceedings No.6917/PKMCS/Estt./A1/2023/2068 dated 02.06.2023 and quash the same and subsequently direct the respondents to regularize all the service and monetary benefits forthwith.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in Impugned Memorandum of Charges dated 11.07.2023 for the proceeding No. 6917/ PKMCS/ Estt./A1/2023/2067 dated 02.06.2023 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits forthwith.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in order bearing F.No. 6917/ PKMCS/Estt./A1/2023/4794 dated 22.12.2023 and quash the same and subsequently direct the second respondent to recall the appointment of fourth respondent as inquiry officer through Order F.No.6917/ PKMCS/ Estt./A1/2023 /4206 dated 6th November 2023.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in Order bearing F.No.6917/ PKMCS/Estt./A1/2023/4793 dated 22.12.2023 and quash the same and subsequently direct second respondent to recall the appointment of fourth respondent as Inquiry officer through Order F.No.6917/PKMCS/Estt./A1/2023/ 4207 dated 6th November 2023. For Petitioner: Mr.Vidit Sinh Chauhan (in all W.Ps) For Respondents: Mr.Syed Mustafa Special Government Pleader for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5 (in all W.Ps)

COMMON ORDER

The writ petition in W.P.Nos.1182 and 1238 of 2024 have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2023, whereby the petitioners are aggrieved by the appointment of the Inquiry Officer.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, though arguing with all vigour, would submit that the order of this Court dated 28.01.2026, being a consent order in this petition, leaves the respondents with no other option except to relieve the petitioner under the VRS. In view of the above stand, in all fairness, he would contend that he has no arguments on the merits of the impugned orders dated 22.12.2023 and 11.07.2023. To put it differently, it is the fair submission of the petitioner that though he had objected to the rejection of his request for change of the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 22.12.2023 and to the charge memorandum dated 11.07.2023, the same would melt into insignificance in view of the subsequent alleged consent order of this Court dated 28.01.2026.

3. At this juncture, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that since the petitioner has sought a change of the Inquiry Officer, though the same was earlier rejected vide order dated 22.12.2023, in order to give a quietus to the issue, the respondents have already moved a file for change of the Inquiry Officer and have also produced the records to substantiate the same.

4. In view of the stand taken by the respondents and having regard to the fact that the file has already been moved for change of the Inquiry Officer and considering the interests of both parties, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has not advanced any argument in this regard, the rejection order dated 22.12.2023 is interfered with. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to appoint a fresh Inquiry Officer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. But, the above order shall, in no way, be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case. The said order was passed only in the above backdrop.

5. With the above direction, W.P.Nos.1182 and 1238 of 2024 are allowed as indicated above.

6. The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.33846 & 33929 of 2023 have been filed challenging the charge memorandum dated 11.07.2023 issued against the respective petitioners.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that since they are entitled for VRS in pursuance of the alleged consent order dated 28.01.2026, they have no grievance against the validity of the charge memorandum. It is also their submission that the learned Government Pleader was present when the above order dated 28.01.2026 was passed. At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader also in all fairness accept his presence while passing the above order.

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that mere issuance of a charge memorandum will not impinge upon any civil right of an employee, and that only upon the conclusion of the enquiry and imposition of punishment the civil right of the party will be affected. Therefore, a challenge to a charge memorandum would arise only in limited circumstances, such as where the charge memorandum has been issued by an incompetent authority or is issued

belatedly or contains vague charges.

9. This Court has perused the pleadings and finds that the petitioners have not raised any allegation regarding the competence of the disciplinary authority. Further, on perusal of the charge memorandum, this Court could not find any vagueness or delay in issuing the same. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view notwithstanding the fact that no argument was advanced by the petitioner against the charge memorandum, this Court on merits arrived at a conclusion that it is too premature for the petitioners to challenge the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

10. Accordingly, W.P.Nos.33929 and 33846 of 2023 stands dismissed.

11. This by itself sufficient to dispose the above writ petition. But in view of the petitioner’s strange argument upon the order dated 28.01.2026, compels this Court to go further. As already submitted that the primordial submission and the main focus of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is upon the order dated 28.01.2026. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the order dated 28.01.2026: “Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submitted that without going into the merits of these cases, this Court may permit the respective petitioners to submit VRS applications, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed for issuance of appropriate directions in this regard.

2. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that the VRS applications of the respective petitions will be processed respondents / Respective Medical Colleges and he has no objection for issuance of suitable directions.

3. Recording the aforesaid submissions, this Court directs the respective petitioners to submit their VRS applications before the respondents / Respective Medical Colleges, within a period of one week from today. On receipt of the said applications, the respondents shall take appropriate decision, as per the general applicability to VRS scheme. This Court makes it clear that the respective petitioners are entitled to benefits prescribed under VRS scheme and the applications of the respective petitioners are to be processed and respondents shall pass orders, within a period of one week thereafter. Time lines have to be strictly followed in.

4. Respondents / Respective Medical Colleges are directed to submit a report before this Court in the above regard on the next hearing date.

5. Post the matter on 12.02.2026.”

12. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the above order is a consent order and was passed by this Court with the consent of the respondents. Therefore, notwithstanding the pendency of the charge memorandum and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, the respondents have no other option except to relieve the petitioners under the VRS.

13. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sports Authority of India and Another v. Dr.Kulbir Singh Rana, reported in 2025 INSC 319, through which the learned counsel submits that when an order has been passed by way of compromise or concession given by a party, they cannot turn back and challenge the order before a higher Court, unless it is a case of fraud or deception.

14. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2026 INSC 642, Reena Kumari and Others etc., v. Praveen Kumar and Others, etc. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 as follows: “17. At this juncture, it is necessary to restate the constitutional framework governing the execution of judicial mandates. Article 129 of the Constitution of India declares this Court to be a Court of Record, vesting in it the inherent power to punish for contempt of itself. The power to punish for civil contempt is a potent mechanism explicitly designed to secure public confidence in the administration of justice. As this Court held in Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh, once an order passed by a competent court is clear and unambiguous, its implementation cannot be conditional upon a party's subjective understanding. Willful disobedience signifies an act done voluntarily with the intent to disregard the law. The directions of 01.02.2013, read with the review order of 21.10.2013, are, as we have held above, clear and unambiguous. The State's years-long failure to implement them may be termed as willful non-compliance.” According to the above ratio, once an order passed by a competent Court in clear and unambiguous terms, its implementation cannot be conditional upon a party's subjective understanding. Deviation, if any, must only be construed as wilful disobedience.

15. He would also rely upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Indian Kayaking and Canoeing Association v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in 2026 INSC 981, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if an order is impossible to be complied with, the parties ought to have moved the Court which passed the order seeking clarification, otherwise it is nothing but wilful disobedience.

16. In the case on hand, though the respondents submitted that, according to the service rules, the pendency of the charge memorandum is a bar to process the VRS applications, such a stand, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be taken, as the respondents have, so far, not moved any application seeking clarification. Therefore, it is the submission of the petitioners that the non-compliance with the order dated 28.01.2026 is nothing but clear wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.

17. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that, pursuant to the order dated 28.01.2026, this Court passed an order on 12.02.2026, wherein it is stated as follows: “It is represented by the learned Special Government Pleader that as per the direction issued by this Court on 28.01.2026, the respective petitioners have submitted their VRS applications and their VRS applications are under active consideration with the respondents and appropriate orders will be passed by the respondents and a report will be filed before this Court.

2. Post the matter on 23.02.2026.”

18. Again, on 31.08.2026, this Court directed the respondents to pass orders in respect of the VRS applications. Subsequently, the respondents rejected the VRS applications on 02.09.2026.

19. In the above background, now let us consider whether the order dated 28.01.2026 is a consent order, or whether the respondents had no option except to comply with the request for VRS. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, on a perusal of the order dated 28.01.2026, it is evident that the said order was passed only upon the representations made by the respective petitioners and after considering the respective petitioners' applications and submissions, without going into the merits of the matter, this Court directed the respondents to consider their applications and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the terms generally applicable to the VRS scheme.

20. Though the learned counsel relies upon certain sentences in the above order, on reading the order dated 28.01.2026 as a whole harmoniously, this Court is of the firm view that the order dated 28.01.2026 is not a consent order. The same only direct the fifth respondent to process the applications, and directed the other respondents to take an appropriate decision in accordance with the terms generally applicable to the VRS scheme. Therefore, notwithstanding the other defences taken by the petitioners in the writ petitions, the submission that the order dated 28.01.2026 is a consent order and that the respondents had no other option except to comply with the VRS applications, is liable to be rejected. Thus, this Court could not find any material to establish the alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.01.2026.

21. In view of the above detailed discussion, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.1182 and 1238 of 2024 are allowed, and W.P.Nos.33929 and 33846 of 2023 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Neutral Citation: Yes NSL

To

1. The Chairman, Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College, Society (PKMCS), Chief Secretariat, Puducherry- 605 001.

2. The Secretary to Government (Health) Cum Vice Chairman, (Disciplinary Authority) Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Chief Secretariat, Goubert Avenue, Beach Road, White Town, Puducherry - 605 001.

3. The Member Secretary (PKMCS) Director, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

4. The Administrative Officer (PKMCS) Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry - 605 009.

5. The Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurveda Medical College and Hospital, (under the aegis of Perunthalaivar Kamaraj Medical College Society, Government of Puducherry) Chalakkara, Mahe, UT of Puducherry – 673311.

6. Dr.Ramachandra Bhat, Dean cum – Inquiry Officer, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. NSL WP No. 33846, 33929 of 2023 & 1182, 1238 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.33694, 33821 of 2023 & 1238, 1276 of 2024 15-09-2026