Dismissed

M. Sugumaran v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC1 Dec 2014WA/1549/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three teachers appealed an order upholding their suspension from government service. The suspension was imposed due to a criminal case regarding forged educational certificates qualifying them for their posts. The court held suspension valid under public interest despite the specific rule cited by lower court, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ appeals dismissed with no costs.

M. Sugumaran Vs the Joint Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

W.A.Nos.1549 to 1551 of 2014

¶6

M.Sugumaran .. Appellant in
W.A.No.1549 of 2014
K.Sathiyavelu .. Appellant in
W.A.No.1550 of 2014
K.Dhinakaran .. Appellant in
W.A.No.1551 of 2014
Vs.
1.The Joint Commissioner (Education) I/c
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai-600 003.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu .. Respondents in
these writ appeals

¶7

These writ appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 14.3.2014 made in W.P.Nos.5520 to 5522 of 2014.

¶8

These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash the same culminating to the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the first respondent and consequently to pass an order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin active service.

¶9

For Appellants : Mr.R.Lakshmi Ratan

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶12

The appellant in W.A.No.1549 of 2014 was working as Teacher in the Chennai Primary School, Patel Nagar, Zone-I. The appellant in W.A.No.1550 of 2014 was working as Teacher in Chennai High School, Harinarayanapuram, Zone-I. The appellant in W.A.No.1551 of 2014 was working as Teacher in Chennai Primary School, OLK Area, Zone-I. They were placed under suspension, vide order dated 22.11.2013 under the provisions of Clause (2) of sub rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (In short “TNCS(D&A) Rules”). They filed writ petitions, calling into question the order of suspension passed under Rule 17(e)(2) of the TNCS(D&A) Rules on the ground that the petitioners were never incarcerated for more than 48 hours, leading to suspension from service.

¶13

The learned Writ Court, considering the fact that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioners in Crime No.451 of 2013 on the allegation that they had forged the certificates, showing their educational qualifications and consequently obtained government job, held that the order of suspension was properly passed.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit without disputing the fact as aforestated that the appellants have been placed under suspension in exercise of powers under Rule 17(e)(2) of the TNCS(D&A) Rules, which provides for suspension in the event of a Government servant is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty eight hours. Thus, the suspension order deserves to be quashed.

¶15

On consideration, we found that Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) of TNCS (D&A) Rules provides that a member of the Government service may be placed under suspension from service, if a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest. There is no dispute that a criminal case has been registered against them, which necessitated placing appellants under suspension in public interest. The Government job was obtained allegedly on submission of fabricated educational qualifications.

¶16

5 It is well settled proposition of law that by quoting a wrong provision of law, the order does not become defective or vitiated, if the same is sustainable in the eyes of law under other provisions. Thus, we do not find any flaw in the order passed by the writ court.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III)

¶20

/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
vvk
To
1.The Joint Commissioner (Education) I/c
Corporation of Chennai,
Chennai-600 003.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu.
3 ccs to Mr.R. Laxmiratan,, Advocate, sr. 58615
W.A.Nos.1549 and 1551 of 2014
KS (CO)
kk 19/12

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Sugumaran v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sugumaran v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Petchimuthu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

The Senior Regional Manager Vs S.X.Avilieo

Union of India, Vs The Registrar

The Dean, Vs K.Gogulsugan

M.Muralidharan, Vs the Director of School

S.Pattabi Vs The General Manager