(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in R.No.11899787/E5/A4/2025, dated 10.10.2025 and to quash the same.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent in R.No.11899787/E5/A4/2025, dated 10.10.2025.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer on 23.11.2017 and was posted at the Primary Health Centre, M.M.Kovilur, Thadikombu Block, Dindigul District. He has thereafter been posted as Health Officer in Bodi Municipality. Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (herein after referred to as Act), the Government was required to appoint a Commissioner for Food Safety and for implementation of the objects of the Act.

3. Under Section 36 of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to appoint Designated Officers not below the rank of Sub Divisional Officers for each District. The Designated Officer is the statutory authority and entrusted with quasi judicial and administrative powers under the Act. Exercising such powers, the third respondent herein had appointed the petitioner as Designated Officer and the petitioner had been performing his statutory functions and was transferred and appointed as Designated Officer of Nilgiri District, where, the petitioner had assumed charge on 15.05.2025. As the petitioner initiated strict enforcement actions against the Food Business Operators of Nilgiri District, on unfounded and vexatious complaints were sent against him. While discharging his duties at Nilgiri District, the petitioner suffered health issues and hence, was on medical leave from 25.07.2025 to 16.10.2025. Hence, he had also applied for medical leave along with valid medical certificate.

4. In the interregnum, on 08.08.2025, the petitioner had received a communication from the third respondent, calling upon him to explain for having failed to attend the review meetings, official events, without even informing the authorities. He had submitted a detailed explanation on 28.08.2025, denying all the allegations, enclosing medical records. However, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 10.09.2025 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which was served upon the petitioner on 22.09.2025.

5. He would further submit that on 12.10.2025, the petitioner was served with the impugned proceedings, dated 10.10.2025, by the second respondent, reverting him to the parent Department. He would vehemently contend that such reversion is not an administrative reversion, but is a stigmatic and punitive in nature, affecting the petitioner's service rights and reputation.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that once the petitioner having been designated under Section 36 of the Act by the third respondent, the second respondent do not have any statutory competence to pass the order impugned herein. He would submit that such statutory appointments cannot be annulled, interfered with by administrative orders. He would further submit that when the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the third respondent is pending, the second respondent cannot revert the petitioner prejudging the issue. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court in the order impugned herein.

7. Countering his arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the Medical Officers in the cadre of Assistant Surgeons or above under the control of the second respondent are designated as Designated Officers by the third respondent on a temporary basis from the Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicines and Health and Family Welfare Department under the orders of the second respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent under Section 36 of the Act appoints them as Designated Officers. Hence, the appointments in the Public Health Department are not disturbed and they continue to be with the parent Department and the second respondent being cadre controlling authority, has authority to withdraw the services of the petitioner from the Food Safety Department.

8. He would further submit that admittedly the petitioner had been on leave for a long duration without intimation, which affects the functioning of the Food Safety Department and the objects of the Act. That apart, he would submit that only after the explanation called for from him on 08.08.2025, the petitioner had submitted his medical certificates. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, enclosing the medical certificates. He would further submit that the issue of his unauthorized absence would be dealt with under the charge memo, in which the petitioner had been issued with a notice, calling for explanation for his unauthorized absence.

9. Further, relying upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.14930 of 2017 and 14128 of 2019 (C.Suresh and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai), dated 16.05.2025, he would submit that the learned single Judge following the judgment of the Karnatake High Court had held that the Designated Officers were appointed on temporary basis and cannot claim as a matter of right to continue in the same post, when the lien and seniority is preserved and maintained in their parent Department and therefore, the order impugned herein is wholly within jurisdiction, which requires no interference from this Court. He would further submit that in the place of the petitioner, another person had also been appointed as Designated Officer on the very same day and she also joined duty.

10. In reply to the same, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said Doctor, who has now been posted, had originally submitted her resignation and she had been asked to recall the resignation and she has now been posted, which itself is a malise to only see that the petitioner does not continue.

11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

12. Admittedly, the petitioner had been appointed as Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, M.M.Kovilur, Thadikombu Block, Dindigul District and thereafter, he was appointed as Designated Officer under the Act. It is not the claim of the petitioner that his appointment as Designated Officer was recruitment by transfer and that his lien had been transferred to the Food Safety Department.

13. A perusal of the order of the petitioner's appointment as Designated Officer would indicate that he had been appointed on diversion from the Tamil Nadu Public Health Department on deputation and on temporary basis. When such an appointment had been made, the parent Department has always got a right to repatriate the petitioner back to its Department. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner had absented himself without any prior permission and only after the issuance of the show cause notice on 08.08.2025, along with his explanation he had submitted a medical report, which is dated 26.08.2025, which is also the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings and hence, this Court restrains itself from making any findings on that regard.

14. As stated above, the petitioner having been only sent on deputation and on temporary basis to the Food Safety Department cannot be heard to say that his appointment is the statutory appointment under Section 36 of the Act and the second respondent does not have any authority to issue the order impugned herein.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merits in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.