The petitioner sought a writ to quash an order dismissing him from service and reinstate him for retirement at superannuation. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that documentary proof established misappropriation of provident funds, the enquiry report was credible, and the writ petition lacked sufficient force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CAV ON : 07/08/2014
DATED : 21/01/2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN
W.P.No.10743 of 2008
M.Rajamanickam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director, Directorate of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006. 3.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri District. 4.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2999/A3/2002, dated 29.11.2007, quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner by allowing him to retire on superannuation with effect from 31.08.2007 with all retirement and pensionary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mahalingam
For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Ramesh Addl. Govt. Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has submitted that he joined the Tamil Nadu Educational Department on 03.10.1969. Thereafter, he was promoted as Headmaster and transferred and worked as Headmaster at Sukkuranda Alli (Kalliyur) Panchayat Union Elementary School from 16.03.1999. While so, the petitioner was charged under Rule 17B of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and suspended from service on 28.08.2007 at the verge of his retirement on 31.08.2007. The charges levelled against him are that, the petitioner abetted for the misappropriation of funds one N.Muthukumarasamy, Junior Assistant who worked in the Assistant
3
Elementary Educational Officer, Kaveripattinam. It is alleged that the said Junior Assistant N.Muthukumarasamy misappropriated to the tune of Rs.30,92,590/-.
4
third respondent, by his notice dated 13.11.2007 called upon him to give his reply / explanation within 15 days. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 22.11.2007, denying the allegation levelled against him. The petitioner has further submitted that the third respondent, by an order dated 29.11.2007 accepted the report of the fourth respondent and passed the impugned order, dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.
5
operation of the suspension order. The second respondent has further submitted that on the basis of the orders passed in W.P.No.22102 of 2006, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service pending disciplinary charges, by an order dated 18.04.2007 passed by the second respondent.
6
his report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The second respondent has further submitted that a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner in Crime No.9 of 2002 before the District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri. The impugned order has been passed only after due consideration of the facts and circumstances and the charges levelled against the petitioner are amply proved.
7
8
respondent had also confirmed the findings of the fourth respondent, without assigning any valid reason and dismissed him from service by the impugned order, dated 29.11.2007. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer / de facto complainant, had levelled a criminal case before the District Crime Branch against one Muthukumarasamy, Junior Assistant, with whom the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated the funds and the said case had been registered in Crime No.9 of 2003. But, in the said FIR, the petitioner's name had not found place. The allegation is purely of criminal nature. Therefore, the Investigating Officer attached to the Dharmapuri District Crime Branch had initiated criminal proceedings against the said Muthukumarasamy. Under the circumstances, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not sustainable under law. The petitioner has no nexus with the said Muthukumarasamy. Further, the alleged offence took place during 2002, but the charges were framed after a lapse of four years. As such, the third respondent has committed shortcomings in the impugned order and hence it is not suitable for execution against the petitioner.
respondents has submitted that the petitioner had joined in the service of Tamil Nadu Education Department as a Secondary Grade Teacher, on
9
03.10.1969, and he was promoted as Headmaster. Subsequently, on 16.03.1999 he was transferred to Panchayat Union Elementary School at Kalliyur. During his tenure as Headmaster, he had misappropriated the general provident fund of various teachers to the tune of Rs.30,92,590/- in collusion with Muthukumarasamy, who was working as office assistant in the Assistant Elementary Educational Office, Kaveripattinam. Hence, charges were framed against the petitioner. The fourth respondent, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, had conducted a comprehensive enquiry and found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Hence, the third respondent has dismissed the petitioner from service by the impugned order, dated 29.11.2007. The impugned order has been passed after verification of criminal case and hence there is no shortcoming in the impugned order. For all the reasons, the learned Additional Government Pleader has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
10
mode of payment etc. Further, the School, where misappropriation of provident funds of the teachers has taken place, is under the petitioner's care
and maintenance. Therefore, the writ petition does not generate sufficient force to allow it and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
costs.
21/01/2016
Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No.
r n s / krk
To
1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
11
C.S.KARNAN, J. r n s / krk
W.P.No.10743 of 2008
21/01/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Headmaster facing disciplinary charges for misappropriation of provident funds with insufficient nexus to criminal proceedings should be allowed to retire on superannuation.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal order passed after an enquiry report finding the charges proved.
Whether the parties need to exhaust appeal remedies before approaching the High Court in a writ petition challenging a service dismissal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Rajamanickam
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department
The Director, Directorate of Elementary Education
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Krishnagiri District
The District Elementary Educational Officer, Namakkal District
C.S. Karnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
