The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(D) No.1346 Health and Family Welfare (I-2) Department dated 13.12.2013, confirming the order dated 16.08.2012, passed by the 2nd respondent in Se.Mu.No.92052/CMaBi2(1)/05-5, quash the same and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits.
2.When the petitioner was working as Sanitary Worker at the Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, a charge memo was issued against her along with three other co-workers. The charge against the petitioner and others is that the petitioner on 14.10.2005, when a patient by name Petchiammal W/o. Arumugam delivered a male child, the petitioner had handed over the child to some other parents with evil intention. Like that another incident has taken place on 20.10.2005 at the same Medical College Hospital, wherein one Muthulakshmi W/o.Sankar gave birth to a male child. Even this time petitioner had involved in handing over the child to some other parents and for the said purpose she was instrumental with co-delinquents in tampering with the hospital records and as against the charges framed against the petitioner enquiry was contemplated. An opportunity was given to the petitioner seeking her explanation and thereafter at her request an oral enquiry was conducted through an enquiry officer, where witnesses were examined. Based on the submissions of defence given by the petitioner and also on considering the other submissions given by the witnesses, who are of course are the co- delinquents along with the petitioner, the enquiry officer had given his findings and conclusion on 21.06.2011, whereby the enquiry officer has concluded that charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Therefore, she had violated the Rules, especially Rule 20 of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
3.The said enquiry report was served on the petitioner and explanation to the report was also called for from the petitioner. After having called for explanation from the petitioner on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority having considered the merits of the report submitted by the enquiry officer, has ultimately concluded to inflict the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of punishment dated 16.08.2012, was issued by the second respondent.
4.As against the said order of punishment of the second respondent, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the first respondent and the same since was not disposed of immediately, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.2439 of 2013, wherein by order dated 26.06.2013, this Court had issued direction to the first respondent to decide the said appeal filed by the petitioner within a time frame and it was also directed that the first respondent while disposing of the appeal, shall consider all the parameters to be taken into consideration under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
5.In pursuant to the orders of this Court appeal filed by the petitioner was taken up for consideration by the first respondent and the first respondent in fact after getting opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission about the proportionality of the punishment awarded against the petitioner and co-delinquent, has also concluded that the punishment given to the petitioner is justifiable and accordingly by order in G.O.(D) No.1346 Public Health and Family Welfare (I-2) Department dated 13.12.2013, the first respondent has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent disciplinary authority. Challenging both the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
6.Heard both sides.
7.Mr.R.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made elaborate submissions pointing out the details mentioned in the enquiry report, which was the basis for the disciplinary authority to conclude that the petitioner can be inflicted with the maximum punishment of removal of service. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the enquiry report, especially pursuant to the first incident said to have been taken place on 14.10.2005, wherein the male child born to Petchiammal and Arumugam was subjected to transfer, the learned counsel pointed out that the enquiry officer has in fact concluded, insofar as the first incident dated 14.10.2005 is concerned, by stating that there is no direct evidence to state that the petitioner was instrumental in handing over the child born on 14.10.2005 to the parents, namely, Petchiammal and Arumugam to a third party. In this regard, the said finding of the enquiry officer, as heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is reproduced herein:
?Fw;wr;rhl;L vz; 1& 14.10.2005 md;W fhiy 6.45 kzpf;F 30 taJila ngr;rpak;khs; fzth; bgah; MWKfk;> ,e;jpuhfhydp> nkyjl;lg;ghiw vd;gth; J}j;Jf;Fo kUj;Jtf; fy;Y}hp kUj;Jtkidapy; gpurt thh;oy; mDkjpf;fg;gl;L md;W fhiy 8.25 kzpf;f xU Mz; FHe;ijia bgw;bwLj;Js;shh;. nkw;go gpurtk; Md FHe;ijia bgw;nwhh;fsplkpUe;J ntW egUf;F jpUkjp. rPj;jhk;khs;> Rfhjhug; gzpahsh; khw;wpf; bfhLj;jhh; vd;gjw;F vt;tpj g[fhnuh my;yJ rhl;rpnah ,y;iy. ,Ug;gpDk;> nkw;go FHe;ijapd; bgw;nwhh;fspd; bgaiu kUj;Jtkid gjpntLfspy; jtwhd cs;nehf;fj;Jld; khw;Wtjw;F Vw;ghL bra;Js;shh; vd;gJ epU:gdkhfpwJ.?
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that the witnesses, said to have been enquired by the enquiry officer, had taken place behind the back of the petitioner as the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses, who are also co- delinquent said to have been involved in the incident along with the petitioner and therefore, without having given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and therefore that would vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings conducted by the enquiry officer.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that insofar as the incident dated 14.10.2005 is concerned, the very finding of the enquiry officer is that there is no direct evidence that the petitioner had involved in transporting the child to some other parents. Insofar as the second incident dated 20.10.2005 is concerned, he submitted that the enquiry officer mainly depended on the alleged statement said to have been given before the enquiry officer. The petitioner in fact has denied any such involvement on her part both on the incident of 14.10.2005 as well as 20.10.2005. When that being so, the enquiry officer merely based on the alleged statement said to have been given by the petitioner accepting the guilt, has proceeded as if the petitioner has accepted her involvement in transporting the child, which was born on 20.10.2005 to the parents, namely, one Muthulakshmi and Sankar.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also contend that the co-delinquents who also said to have been involved in the incident, wherein the petitioner has been given the maximum punishment, had been given very lesser punishment. For instance, in respect of one Pitchaikannu, the punishment awarded is only stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 18.06.2007, wherein it has been specifically stated that five persons including the petitioner were jointly and severally involved in a disciplinary case and the relevant portion reads thus:
?WHEREAS the Government servants specified below are jointly and severally involved in a disciplinary case:-
1.Tmt.Pitchaikani, Staff Nurse, Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi.
2.Tmt.Esther Flora, Maternity Assistant, Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi.
3.Thiru.M.Soundararajan, Male Nursing Assistant, Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi.
4.Thiru.A.Sankaranarayanan, Hospital worker, Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi.
5.Tmt.J.Seethammal, Sanitary Worker, Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi.?
Even though such a severalty has been stated in the proceedings of the second respondent, now through the impugned order, the petitioner has been singled out, as against her only maximum punishment of removal of service has been imposed, whereas the other delinquents, either has been exonerated or only given minimum punishment of stoppage of increment. Absolutely, there is no justification on the part of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority to give maximum punishment to the petitioner alone. Therefore, the very proportionality of the punishment awarded against the petitioner is on the higher side and therefore, the same has to be interfered with.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also would submit that inspite of the directions given by this Court, in the order referred to above, that the appellate authority considering gravity of the offence and the age of the petitioner, as she was 58 years at that time, shall consider all the parameters for consideration under discipline and appeal Rules, the appellate authority has confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority without independently applying the mind, especially on the issue of proportionality of the punishment and therefore at least for the said purpose, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with.
12.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the charges framed against the petitioner and other co-delinquents are serious in nature as none of the delinquent including the petitioner has totally denied the very incident taken place on 14.10.2005 and 20.10.2005. The very fact that on the said two days two male children were born at the 3rd respondent medical College Hospital and the records were changed, where the name of the original father and mother had been changed. It was done by a group of people, which includes the petitioner or individually by the petitioner and the incident since has not been denied an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, it was revealed that in both the incidents the petitioner involved, but the only issue is that what is the nature of involvement of the petitioner in both the incidents taken place on 20.10.2005 and 14.10.2005, where children born to real parents are changed or handed over to some other parents.
13.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would further submit that the enquiry officer had taken all pains in traversing the evidence to each and every stage of incident and had been carefully considered and very detailed finding has been given, which discloses indisputably the involvement of the petitioner. Since the charges as stated above are very serious in nature and even if an iota of doubt arose in the minds of the general public that such things are happening in Government Hospitals, where if male child is born, even the hospital employees would be instrumental in handing over the new born child to third parties either with the consent or without the consent of the real parents, then it will sent wrong signal to the public at large and the hospital functioning under the Government would be at stake. Therefore, this kind of punishment has to be imposed, so that the incident should not occur in future. Therefore, there is every justification on the part of the disciplinary authority as well the appellate authority in inflicting the punishment of removal of service on the petitioner and therefore, both the impugned orders passed by the second respondent and first respondent do not require interference by this Court.
14.This Court considered the said rival submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties.
15.Insofar as the first incident dated 14.10.2005 is concerned, certain facts are undisputed, where originally the male child was born to the parents, namely, Petchiammal and Arumugam, whereas subsequently the names of the parents got changed into Bavia and stanly. There is absolutely no reason why the name of the original father and mother got to be changed to another set of parents. Secondly, when the co-delinquents were enquired as witnesses they have deposed before the enquiry officer that only at the instance of the petitioner, the names of the parents were changed in the hospital registers concerned.
16.Insofar as the second incident dated 20.10.2005 is concerned, here also the original name of the parents was Muthulakshmi and Sankar. This name got changed in the hospital register. In this regard the findings of the enquiry officer is very clear and detail and therefore certain findings given by the enquiry officer are reproduced herein for better appreciation:
?,J nghynt> 20.10.2005 md;W J}j;Jf;Fo muR kUj;Jtf; fy;Y}hp kUj;Jtkidapy; fhiy 9.05 kzpf;F jpUkjp. Kj;Jbyl;Rkp (f.bg.rq;fh;> mHnfrg[uk;> J}j;Jf;Fo) vd;gth; cs;nehspahf mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. mt;thW mDkjpf;fg;gLk; rkak; nrh;f;ifg; gphptpYk;> kfg;ngW cs;nehahsp gphptpYk; nkw;go nehahspapd; bgah; Kj;Jbyl;Rkp vd;Wk; (f.bg.rq;fh;> mHnfrg[uk;> J}j;Jf;Fo) gjpt[fs; nkw;bfhs;sg;gl;Ls;sJ. md;W khiy 3.23 kzpf;F nkw;go nehahspf;F xU Mz; FHe;ij gpwe;Js;sJ. md;Wk; (20.10.2005) jpUkjp. rPj;jhk;khs; kfg;ngW gphptpy; Rfhjhug; gzpahsuhf gzpg[hpe;J cs;shh;. mth; jdJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; 20.10.2005 md;W gpurtpj;j jpUkjp. Kj;Jbyl;Rkp vd;gthpd; jhahh; jd;dplk; te;J jhq;fs; gpr;ir vLj;J FLk;gk; elj;jpf; bfhz;oUg;gjhft[k; mjdhy; gpwe;j FHe;ijia tsh;f;f ,ayhJ vd;Wk;> vdnt FHe;ijia ahhplkhtJ bfhLj;J tpLq;fs; vd;Wk; jd;dplk; ntz;oajhft[k; Twpa[s;shh;. mjd;gona jpUkjp. rPj;jhk;khs; Rfhjhug;gzpahsh; mth;fs; jdf;F bjhpe;j xUtUf;F FHe;ij ,y;iy vdt[k;> mth; jw;brayhf ntW xUtiu ghh;g;gjw;F kUj;Jtkidf;F te;jpUg;gjhft[k; mth;fsplk; FHe;ijia bfhLq;fs; vd jhd; Twpajhft[k; jdJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; Twpa[s;shh;. mjd;gona FHe;ij jpUkjp.rPj;jhk;khs; Rl;of; fhl;oa eghplk; FHe;ij bfhLf;fg;gl;ljhf Twpa[s;shh;.
md;W (20.10.2005) nrh;f;ifg; gphptpy; gzpapypUe;j jpU. rq;fuehuhazd;> kUj;Jtkid gzpahsh; fPH;fz;lthW thf;FK:yk; bfhLj;Js;shh;.
jhd; md;W ,ut[ nrh;f;ifg; gphptpy; gzpapy; ,Ue;jbghGJ jpUkjp.rPj;jhk;khs; jd;dplk; te;J md;W fhiy cs;nehahspahf mDkjpf;fg;gl;l jpUkjp.Kj;Jbyl;Rkp kw;Wk; mthpd; fzth; bgah; jtWjyhf bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;> nehahspapd; bgah; g[dpjh vd;Wk; fzth; bgah; bldp];ld; vd;Wk; khw;wpj; jUk;goa[k; ntz;odhh; vd;Wk; nehahspia jdf;F ed;whf bjhpa[k; vd;Wk; jpUkjp. rPj;jhk;khs; Twpajhft[k; thf;FK:yk; mspj;Js;shh;. mjd;go> rfCHpauhd jpUkjp.rPj;jhk;khs; jdf;F bjhpe;jth; vd;W Twpajhy; nehahsp kw;Wk; fzth; bgaiu khw;wpf; bfhLj;jjhf bjhptpj;Js;shh;. md;W kUj;Jtkid gzpapy; jpU.rq;fuehuhazd; cld; gzpg[hpe;j jpU.Rlh;fz;zd; Mz;brtpypah; cjtpahsh; mth;fSk; nkw;fz;lthW jpUkjp.rPj;jhk;khs; Rfhjhug; gzpahsh; nfl;Lf; bfhz;lJ cz;ikjhd; vd;Wk; rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;shh;. gpd;dh; jpUkjp. rPj;jhk;khs; mth;fs; jpUj;jg;gl;l mDkjp kw;Wk; czt[r; rPl;il md;nw kfg;ngW cs;nehahsp gphptpy; brtpypauhf gzpg[hpe;j jpUkjp. gpr;irf;fdpaplk; bfhLj;J nehahsp jdf;F bjhpe;jth; vd;gjhy; nrh;f;ifg; gphptpy; bra;ag;gl;l khw;wq;fis cs;nehahsp gphpt[ gjpntLfspYk; nkw;bfhs;SkhW ntz;oajhft[k;> jpUkjp.gpr;irf;fdp> brtpypah; jdJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; Twpa[s;shh;. jpUkjp.gpr;irf;fdp brtpypah; mth;fSk; ,JFwpj;J nehahspaplk; tprhuiz bra;J nehahspapd; bgah; khw;wk; rhpjhd; vd;Wk; xg;g[f;bfhz;ljhy;> nrh;f;ifg; gphptpy; bra;j khw;wq;fis cs;nehahsp gphpt[ gjpntLfspYk; nkw;bfhz;ljhf thf;FK:yk; mspj;Js;shh;.?
27.The very petitioner herself had given a statement, which has been recorded and finding to that effect has been given by the enquiry officer and the said finding is as follows:
?Vii) Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;lthpd; tpsf;f mwpf;if& 20.10.2005 md;W FHe;ijiag; bgw;w jha; ntW xU egUf;F FHe;ijia kdg;g{h;tkhf ahUila tw;g[Wj;jYk; ,d;wp jj;J bfhLj;Js;shh;fs; vd;Wk;> ,jpy; bgah; khw;wk; rk;ge;jkhf jdf;F vJt[k; bjhpahJ vd;Wk; jdJ tpsf;ff; fojj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;sh;;. ,Ug;gpDk;. tprhuizapd; nghJ 20.10.05 md;W FHe;ijia bgw;w nehahspapd; jhahh; jd;dplk; te;J jhq;fs; gpr;ir vLj;J FLk;gk; elj;Jtjhy; ntW xU egUf;F FHe;ijia bfhLj;J tpLq;fs; vd;W Twpajpd; nghpy; jdf;F bjhpe;j ntW xU egUf;F FHe;ijia bfhLf;fr; brhd;djhf xj;Jf; bfhz;Ls;shh;.?
28.After considering those statements, witnesses and circumstances of the case, the enquiry officer has given his findings chronologically. Firstly, for the incident took place on 14.10.2005, he has given the following finding:
?vdnt FHe;ijia ntW egh;fSf;F khw;wpf; bfhLf;fhj gl;rj;jpy; ,th; bgah;khw;wk; bra;a rk;ge;jg;gl;l kUj;Jtkid gzpahshplk; rpghhpR bra;a njit ,y;iy. vdnt FHe;ijia ntW egh;fSf;F khw;wpajw;F neuo rhl;rpak; ,y;yhtpl;lhYk;> bgah; khw;wk; bra;jjpy; ,th; <LghL fhl;oa[s;shh;. vdnt FHe;ijia ntW egUf;F khw;Wk; tpraj;jpy; ,tUf;F kiwKf rk;ge;jk; cs;sJ vdt[k;> bgah; khw;Wk; tpraj;jpy; neuo rk;ge;jk; cs;sJ vdt[k; bjhpatUfpwJ.?
29.Insofar as the second incident is concerned the enquiry officer has given his findings, which reads as follows:
?20.10.2005 md;W fhiy 9.05 kzpastpy; J}j;Jf;Fo mHnfrg[j;ijr; nrh;e;j Kj;Jbyl;Rkp vd;gth; (f.bg.rq;fh;) J}j;Jf;Fo muR kUj;Jtf;fy;Y}hp kUj;Jtkid kfg;ngW gphptpy; cs;nehahspahf mDkjpf;fg;gl;L md;W gpw;gfy; 3.23 kzpf;F xU Mz; FHe;ijia bgw;bwLj;Js;shh;. mt;thW bgw;w gpd;g[> nkw;go nehahspapd; jhahh; jpUkjp. rPj;jhk;khsplk; te;J jhq;fs; gpr;ir vLg;gjhft[k;> jq;fSf;F FHe;ijia tsh;f;f ,ayhJ vd;gjhYk;> ntW egUf;F FHe;ijia khw;wpj;ju ntz;oajhf rPj;jhk;khs; Rfhjhug; gzpahsh; mth;fs; jdJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; bjhptpj;Js;shh;. md;gona> mtUf;F bjhpe;j egUf;F FHe;ijia khw;wpf; bfhLf;f Vw;ghL bra;jjhft[k;> jdJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; xj;Jf; bfhz;Ls;shh;. jtput[k;> ve;j egUf;F khw;wpf; bfhLj;jhnuh mnj eghpd; bgaiu kUj;Jtkid gjpntLfspy; nkhro khw;wk; bra;a md;W gzpapypUe;j jpUkjp. gpr;irf;fdp brtpypahplKk;> jpU.rq;fu ehuhazd;> kUj;Jtkid gzpahshplKk; rpghhpR bra;Js;shh; vd;gJ rhl;rpak; K:yk; bjhpatUfpwJ.
Mdhy;> nkw;go FHe;ij khw;wj;ij rf CHpah;fsplk; kiwj;Jr; rk;ge;jg;gl;l egh; jdf;F bjhpe;jth; vd;Wk; Twpa[s;shh;. vdnt nkw;go FHe;ij khw;Wk; tpraj;jpYk;> bgah;khw;Wk; tpraj;jpYk; ,tUf;F neuoahf bjhlh;g[ cs;sJ vd;gij ,tuJ thf;FK:yKk;> rhl;rpaq;fs; K:yKk; bjhpatUfpwJ.?
30.Insofar as the second incident dated 20.10.2005 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was instrumental in handing over the child to some other parents, which according to the petitioner the real parents said to have made a request to the petitioner that they are in indigent circumstances and therefore, they cannot nurture the child even though it is a male child and therefore, the same can be handed over to any required parents and hence, it was given to parents, who on their voluntary action came to the Hospital has expressed willingness to take the child. However, the names of the real parents of the child born on 20.10.2005 got to be changed in the hospital records, at the instance of the petitioner, as the petitioner had requested the other co-staff that the names of the mother and father of the child have been wrongly given and therefore, the real names of the parents have to be recorded in the hospital records.
31.If we compare these two incidents especially in respect of the incident that took place on 20.10.2005, no other conclusion can be arrived at by any prudent authority to state that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever. She was instrumental in involving the names of the parents got changed in the hospital register and ultimately the male child had been handed over to some other parents. All these aspects have been appreciated in detail by the enquiry officer, who has given a very detail finding to each of the aspect referred to above.
32.Insofar as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned, no doubt the petitioner has been inflicted with maximum punishment, whereas one such delinquent has been given punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect. In this regard, pursuant to the direction given by this Court as stated supra the authority has referred the matter to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as to the proportionality of punishment awarded to the petitioner and other co-delinquents. In fact along with the order of the appellate authority, the order copy of the service commission, whereby its advise has been given, also has been annexed. The service commission in its concluding remark has stated as follows:
?,e;j tHf;fpy; jpUkjp. n$. rPj;jk;khs; (nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; - 1) Kiwaw;w braypdhy; jz;of;fg;gl ntz;oath; vd;gjhy; murpdhy; tpjpf;fg;gl;l jz;lidahd ?gzpePf;fk;?vd;gij cWjp bra;ayhk; vd;Wk; jpUkjp. m.gpr;irf;fdp (nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;-2) jdf;F chpa gzpapid bra;jhh; vd;W ,Ue;jhYk;> jug;gl;l jfty; Kiwahd tifapy; mspf;fg;gl;ljh vd;gij rhpahd Kiwia filg;gpoj;J> mwpe;J gzp bra;aj;jtwpa[s;sjhy; md;dhUf;F murpdhy; mspf;fg;gl;oUf;Fk; jz;lidahd md;dhuJ Cjpa cah;tpid 3 Mz;LfSf;F jpuz;l gaDld; epWj;jp itj;jy; vd;gij cWjp bra;ayhk; vd;Wk; njh;thizak; fUJfpwJ. Vdnt ,e;j ,U nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;fspd; nky;KiwaPLfisa[k; epuhfhpf;fyhk; vd njh;thizak; muRf;F Mnyhrid tHq;FfpwJ.? Only on the basis of such advise of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the appellate authority after having applied the mind independently and considering the serious nature of the offence committed by the petitioner in this case, where the petitioner and others have been involved in a heinous action, has confirmed the punishment of removal of service of the petitioner which was awarded by the disciplinary authority/2nd respondent herein.
33.On considering all these aspects and the totality of the situation, wherein such punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment awarded against the petitioner is not on the higher side. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, the punishment having been awarded to the petitioner shall be treated only as deterrent so that this kind of criminal action on the part of the hospital staff shall not re-occur in future so that the opinion and image of the public about the function of the Government hospital would be protected and saved. Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court finds that there is no infirmity or un- sustainability in the impugned orders and accordingly this Writ Petition deserves dismissal.
35.Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai ? 10.
3.The Principal, Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital, Thoothukudi. (Enquiry Officer).
.