Allowed

G. Raja v. the Director of Elementary

Madras HC6 Mar 2017WP(MD)/19792/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed a charge memo against a teacher's federation secretary. The memo alleged violations of conduct rules regarding circulating pamphlets and implied sexual harassment. The court held the charges unjustified as they did not align with the specific conduct rules cited.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge memo dated 21.02.2013 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to confer all consequential benefits to the petitioner within eight weeks.

G. Raja Vs the Director of Elementary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.03.2017

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19792 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

G.Raja

.. Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District.

¶13

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District.

¶14

5.Periannan,

¶15

Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District.

¶16

6.A.Anbunathan,

¶17

Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District.

¶18

7.M.Arokiaraj,

¶19

Secondary Grade Teacher, Panchayat Union Elementary School, Silukkappatti, Kalayarkoil Union, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents

¶20

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in her Proceedings Na.Ka.No.257/B2/2012 dated 21.02.2013 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to confer all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam for M/s.C.S.Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru (for R1 to R4)

¶24

Additional Government Pleader

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The instant writ petition has filed to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2^nd Respondent in the proceedings in Na. Ka.No.257/B2/2012 dated 21.02.2013 and prayed for the quashment of the said proceedings with a consequential relief to provide all the benefits attached with the service of the Petitioner as Elementary School Headmaster.

¶27

2.It is the case of the Petitioner that on 26.09.1996, the Petitioner joined as Secondary Grade Teacher. Thereafter on 30.07.2007 he was promoted as Elementary School Headmaster. Further, the Petitioner was the District Secretary of Tamil Nadu Teachers Federation. In the aforesaid capacity, the Petitioner used to receive grievances from the teachers by way of oral and written representation and one such representation was received through cell phone for the alleged sexual harassment upon a woman Teacher namely Shanthi by the 7^th Respondent. In this regard the Petitioner orally informed the sexual harassment of the 7^th Respondent to the Police and also brought this matter to the notice of 2^nd Respondent in writing on 24.01.2013.

¶28

3.The further case of the Petitioner is that the 2^nd Respondent did not take any action on the representation given by the Petitioner. So, the federation in which the Petitioner holds the post of District Secretary circulated a pamphlet by highlighting the illegalities committed by the 2^nd Respondent and also against the 7^th Respondent. Thereafter, the issue of circulating the pamphlet was brought to the notice of concerned police by the 7^th Respondent and out of enquiry they found that it was issued by the Petitioner. Therefore an order of suspension was issued against the Petitioner on 06.02.2013. So, the Petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.No.2744/2013 before this court and pending the said writ petition the order of suspension was revoked on 26.04.2013 and the Petitioner was reinstated into service. As the Petitioner was reinstated, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. However, on 21.02.2013 the 2^nd Respondent issued the impugned charge memo for the very same allegation. The said charge memo dated 21.02.2013 is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶29

4.The counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the charge memo was issued under section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules stating that the Petitioner has violated rule 18 of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973. The said rule is extracted hereunder:

¶30

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

¶31

Canvassing on Non-official or other outside influence:

¶32

No government servant shall bring or attempt to bring

¶33

¶34

any political or other outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interests in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the government.

¶35

5.However, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that absolutely there is no connection between the circulation of pamphlets and the alleged violation of the aforesaid Rule 18. So, prima-facie the charge memo is unsustainable.

¶36

6.It is further submitted that by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the contents of the impugned charge memo is very vague and no clear cut averments were given with regard to the allegations leveled against the petitioner.

¶37

7.The said charge memo and the appendix are subjected to perusal. The contents of the charge memo speaks about the issuance of the pamphlets and finally concluded that the Petitioner has violated rule 20(B) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants conduct Rules 1973. The said rule is extracted hereunder:

¶38

20-B Prohibition of sexual harassment of working

¶39

women:-

¶40

No government servant shall indulge in any act of sexual harassment of any woman at the work place.

¶41

Every government servant who is in charge of a work place shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment to any woman at such work place.

¶42

Explanation:- For the purpose of this rule, “sexual harassment” include such unwelcome sexually determined behavior, whether directly or by implication as:-

¶43

a) Physical contact and advances; or

¶44

b) Demand or request for sexual favours; or

¶45

c) Sexually coloured remarks; or

¶46

d) Showing any pornography; or

¶47

e) Any other unwelcomed physical, verbal or nonverbal conduct of sexual nature”.

¶48

As the charge memo is not legally valid, the counsel for the Petitioner prays for the quashment of the same.

¶49

8.The learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that by relying on the counter affidavit filed by 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents stating that the allegations leveled in the pamphlets circulated by the Petitioner was enquired. In the enquiry it was found that no teacher had contacted the Petitioner for the alleged sexual harassment upon her by the 7^th respondent. It is brought to the notice of the court that the Petitioner is accused of Calendar Case No.5/2006 and Calendar Case No.174 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sivagangai and he also paid fine a sum of Rs.1,000/-. Moreover, the learned Government Advocate further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that Rule 20(B) would applicable not only to the person committed the offence of sexual harassment directly but the same

¶50

¶51

would applicable to the persons who has committed the offence of sexual harassment indirectly. Further, he justified that the issuance of charge memo for the offence committed by the Petitioner for the circulation of pamphlet wherein he has used imputation of sexual harassment. So, he prays for the dismissal of the writ petition as the same is devoid of merit.

¶52

9.I heard Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 4 and the materials available on records are perused.

¶53

10.It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is the District Secretary of Teachers Federation and he circulated the pamphlets based on the complaint received from a women teacher followed by sexual harassment upon her by the 7^th respondent. However, the learned counsel for Petitioner would relied on a judgment of this court passed in W.P.(MD)No.8782 of 2009 wherein a direction was given to constitute a Complaints Committee and the Complaints Committee shall go into the allegations made against a person and after the report of the said Committee further action is recommended.

¶54

11.In the case on hand is that the charge memo was issued not for any sexual harassment caused by the Petitioner but the said charge memo was issued for the circulation of a pamphlet for the alleged sexual harassment of the 7^th Respondent upon a teacher. So, the conclusion of the Respondent in the charge memo that the Petitioner has violated Rule 20(B) of the Conduct Rules 1973 is not applicable. At the same time rule 18 would say that no government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or other outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further in respect of matters pertaining to the service under the Government. But in the case on hand there is no allegation against the Petitioner that he brings or attempts to bring any political or other outside influence by circulating the pamphlets. So, the charge memo issued stating that the Petitioner has violated the aforesaid rule 18 and 20(B) is not justified by the 2^nd Respondent by bringing those allegations in the charge memo. In the absence of such averments in the charge memo in the considered opinion of this court the charge memo would not withstand for any further proceedings. So, there is no option for this court other than to quash the impugned charge memo issued by the 2^nd Respondent in the proceedings in Na. Ka.No.257/B2/2012 dated 21.02.2013, accordingly the same is quashed.

¶55

12.In the result:

¶56

a) the writ petition is allowed, by setting aside the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in proceedings in Na. Ka.No.257/B2/2012 dated 21.02.2013;

¶57

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b) the respondents are hereby directed to confer all the consequential benefits to the petitioner;

¶58

¶59

c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶60

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/

¶61

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶62

¶63

1.The Director of Elementary Education, Chennai – 600 006.

¶64

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶65

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kalayarkoil, Sivagangai District.

¶66