Allowed

Mrs.S.Stella v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Jan 2022WP(MD)/1565/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a teacher challenging a punishment order. The Court quashed the order imposing a three-year increment withholding, holding the authority exceeded its brief by punishing the petitioner's demeanor rather than the veracity of charges laid on verified sanctified posts.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.01.2017 set aside and writ petition allowed by way of remand to reconsider petitioner's explanation and conduct appropriate action regarding the other teacher in the post.

Mrs.S.Stella Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.1565 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.01.2022 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.(MD).No.1565 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1651 and 1652 of 2018

¶4

Mrs.S.Stella ... Petitioner vs.

¶5

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai 600 009.

¶6

2.The Director of School Education, Department of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 06. 3.The Joint Director of School Education, Department of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai -06.

¶7

4.The Chief Educational Officer, Chief Educational Office, Collectorate Complex, Maruthupandiyan Nagar, Sivagangai District.

¶8

5.The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office, Meenakshi Complex, Devakottai 630 302, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.70217/C2/E3/2009, dated Nil.01.2017 singed on 20.01.2017 on the file of the respondent No.3 and the consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.No.13049/C4/E2/2017, dated 07.11.2017 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to provide the increments and consequential benefits to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶10

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

¶11

1/6

¶12

W.P.(MD).No.1565 of 2018

¶13

: Mr.V.Om Prakash Government Advocate

¶14

For Respondents

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner in this writ petition has had a checkered career. In June 1987, she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in a sanctioned post. She qualified as a B.T.Assistant in 1992 and was working in Anumanthakudi School as Secondary Grade Teacher. While there, she was promoted and transferred as B.T.Assistant to the Sathappa Government Higher Secondary School, Nerkuppai. Since her husband was in the Army, she sought re-transfer to Anumanthakudi as her first preference and Periakarai as her second preference.

¶17

2.The transfer counselling was to be conducted as per G.O. (Ms.).No.145, dated 15.04.2009 and the first preference was to be given to persons whose spouses were in the Army. She was not given her choice in the counselling and was ultimately forced to rejoin at Nerkuppai. She availed medical leave from 04.06.2009 which was rejected and a relieving order passed with effect from 03.06.2009 itself. This order came to be challenged in W.P.(MD).No.4854 of 2009 which came to be allowed on 07.08.2009, directing the respondents to accommodate her in Anumanthakudi.

¶18

3.Since this order had been obtained by the petitioner without the Court hearing one Sebastian, who was already posted at Anumanthakudi, he sought a review, which came to be allowed by order dated 07.06.2010. As a consequence, the petitioner's writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.4854 of 2009 stood dismissed. The petitioner appealed against the said order and by order dated 03.09.2010 in W.A.No.369 of 2010, the petitioner got full relief to the effect that she was, and is, entitled to a post in Anumanthakudi, in light of the service put in by her husband in the Army.

¶19

4.The official respondents had filed a writ appeal in W.A.(MD). No.504 of 2009, challenging the acceptance of the petitioner's writ petition which was also dismissed by the First Bench of this Court on 17.12.2009 as withdrawn and granting liberty to the Special Government Pleader to re-canvass the issue at a later stage, if required. The Writ Appeal was withdrawn also primarily on the ground that the review petition filed by Sebastian was pending before the learned single Judge at that point in time.

¶20

5.Sebastian sought a review of order dated 03.09.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No.369 of 2020 which also came to be dismissed categorically, the Division Bench pointing out that no case has been made out to review the decision taken. The status of this petitioner as a spouse of an Army official is undisputed and admittedly, there was a vacancy that had arisen in Anumanthakudi School during counselling. The respondents were thus directed to implement the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

2/6

¶22

W.P.(MD).No.1565 of 2018

¶23

decision of the Division Bench dated 03.09.2010, stricto sensu, within one week.

¶24

The petitioner thereafter sought implementation of the above order. By proceedings dated 06.04.2011, the Chief Educational Officer / R4 while overtly appearing to comply with the order of this Court states that the petitioner may join Anumanthakudi School in a surplus post. The petitioner filed a Contempt Application alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 28.01.2011 passed by the Division Bench and by order dated 12.04.2011, the Bench reiterated that the petitioner will join the post of B.T.Assistant at Government Higher Secondary School, Anumanthakudi, fixing the date of joining on 18.04.2011.

¶25

7.The Bench records the submission of the parties that disciplinary action was being contemplated as against the petitioner, directing that her absence shall be treated as eligible leave and anything over and above the same shall be treated as leave on loss of pay, subject to available rule in this regard.

¶26

Admittedly, the petitioner has not rejoined on 18.04.2011. While this is so, the petitioner sought salary for the intervening period pointing out that Sebastian had been continuing in the said post in spite of having failed at every stage in the litigation. Though there has been a lacuna on the part of the petitioner in not joining the post on 18.04.2011 on the direction of the Court, this appears to be as a response to the statement of R4 in communication dated 06.04.2011 that the post in Anumanthakudi was a surplus post. In fact, in proceedings bearing No.2470/A2/2009, dated 05.01.2012, R4 has earlier stated as follows:

¶27

“ BkYk; md;dhh; mDke;jf;Fo muR Bky;epiyg; gs;spapy; gzpBaw;fhky; vt;tpj tpLg;g [kpd;wp nUg;gjhy; md;dhh; kPJ xGA;F eltof;if vLj;jpl gs;spf; fy;tp niz naf;Feh; (gzpahsh; bjhFjp) mth;fSf;F ghpe;Jiu bra;ag;gl;L, ghh;it 4y; fz;l bray;Kiwfspd;go md;dhh; kPJ jkpH;ehL FoKiwg;gzp ( xGA;F kw;Wk; Bky;KiwaPL tpjpfs; 17 (M)d; fPH; xGA;F eltof;if nd;Dk; epYitahf cs;sJ. ne;epiyapy; Bkw;fz;l nU eltof;ifa[k ; epYitahf cs;s epiyapy;, md;dhh; vjd; mog;gilapy; kPst[k; gzpapy; Bru mDkjp BfhUfpwhh; vd;gij nt;tYtyfj;jpw;F bjhptpj;jpl Bfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;.”” ”

¶28

It is the statement as above, that the post at Anumanthakudi is a surplus post, that has led to the apprehension and consequential delay on the part of the petitioner, in joining the post.

¶29

9.The post in which the petitioner was to be accommodated at Anumanthakudi is admittedly a sanctioned post and had she acquiesced to an appointment in a surplus post, she would be denying herself of service benefits to which she was legally entitled. Hence, the hesitation to report for duty as directed which I find understandable. She ultimately joined at Anumanthakudi School on 22.10.2013. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

3/6

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.1565 of 2018

¶32

10.In the interim, she had been issued a charge memo dated 19.04.2011, to which she tendered her explanations, appeared before the enquiry officer and ultimately faced an order dated 20.01.2017, imposing a punishment of withholding of increment for three years without cumulative effect.

¶33

11.The primary charge as against the petitioner are as follows: “Bkw;fz;l

¶34

vdBt md;dhh; kPJ jkpH;ehL muR gzpahsh; Foikg; gzp kw;Wk; Bky;KiwaPl;L tpjp 17( b ) apd; fPH; Vd; xGA;F eltof;if vLf;ff; TlhJ vd;gjw;fhd tpsf;fj;jpid nr;bray;Kiwfs; fpilj;j 15 jpdA;fSf;Fs; tpsf;fkspf;f rk;ge;jg;gl;l Mrphpah; Bfl;Lf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh.;

¶35

rk;ge;jg;gl;l MrphpahplkpUe;J Fwpg;gpl;l fhyf;bfLtpw;Fs; vt;tpj tpsf;fKk; bgwg;gltpy;iy vdpy; rk;ge;jg;gl;ltuhy; tpsf;fkspf;f vJt[k; ny;iy vdf; fUjp nt;tYtyfj;jpy; cs;s MtzA;fspd; mog;gilapy; xGA;F eltof;if Bkw;bfhs;s gs;spf;fy;tp niz naf;Feh; (gzpahsh; bjhFjp) mth;fSf;F ghpe;Jiuf;fg;gLk; vd rk;ge;jg;gl;l MrphpaUf;F bjhptpf;fyhfpwJ. ”

¶36

12.The impugned order dated 20.01.2017 merely reiterates the entire sequence of events and imposes punishment on the following logic:

¶37

” “jpUkjp.rp.!;bly;yh, gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; (rKf mwptpay;) vd;ghh; jdJ khWjy; tp&aj;jpy; tpl;Lf;bfhLf;Fk; kdg;ghd;ik ny;yhika[k; cah; mYtyh;fis kjpf;fj; jtwpa[k;, jdJ bghUg;gpida [k ; flikapida[k; kwe;J jd; kdk; Bghd Bghf;fpy; cah; mYtyh;fis myl;rpag;gLj;jpa [k ; mtJhwhf jdJ tpsf;ff; fojj;jpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJk; fz;of;fj;jf;fJ. BkYk;, Ra tpsk;guk; bgWk; tifapy; gj;jphpifapy; Bgl;o bfhLg;gJ, khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiyth; mYtyfj;jpd; Kd;g [ murpay; fl;rpfspd; Jiza[ld; jPf;Fspf;f Kaw;rpj;jJ Bghd;w bray;fs; muRg; gzpapy; cs;s xUth; mJt[k ; khzth;fSf;F ey;byhGf;fj;ij Bghjpf;f Btz;oa Mrphpah; gzpg[hpa[k ; jpUkjp.rp.!;bly;yh vd;ghhpd; Bkw;fz;l bray;fshy; Jiwapd; ew;bgaiua[k ;, jhd; gzpahw;Wk; Mrphpah; gjtpf;Fk; fsA;fj;ij Vw;gLj;Jk; tifapy; ele;J bfhz;ljhy; rhh;e;j Mrphpiaapd; ePz;l fhyg; gzp mDgtj;ija [k;, jpwikiaa[k; fUj;jpy; bfhz;L md;dhh; kPJ bjhlug;gl;l jkpH;ehL FoKiwg;gzp (xHA;F kw;Wk; Bky;KiwaPL) tpjpfspy; tpjp 17( b ) d; fPH; rptfA;if khtl;lk;, mDke;jFo, muR Bky;epiyg; gs;sp, gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;, jpUkjp.rp.!;bly;yh v;dghUf;F fPH;fz;lthW nWjp Miz tHA;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶38

jpUkjp.rp.!;bly;yh, gl;ljhhp Mrphpah; vd;ghh; 15.10.2010, 14.02.2011 kw;Wk; 26.10.2012 Mfpa Bjjpfspy; gzp Bru Mizapl;Lk; gzpapy; Brutpy;iy. 18.04.2011f;Fs; gzpapy; Brutpy;iybadpy; chpa eltof;if Bkw;bfhs;syhk; vd khz;g [kpF cah;ePjpkd;wk; Mizapl;l gpwFk; gzpapy; Brutpy;iy. VdBt Fw;wk;rhl;lg;gl;lth; bjhpe;Bj Fw;wk; g[hpe;Js;shh; vd;gJ bjhpatUfpwJ. tprhuiz mYtyh; mjid cWjpg;gLj;jpa [s;shh;. VdBt jpUkjp.rp.!;bly;yh, gl;ljhhp Mrphpah;, muR Bky;epiyg; gs;sp, mDke;jf;Fo, rptfA;if khtl;lk; vd;ghUf;F Kd;W M;zLfhyk; vjph;tUk; Cjpa cah;tpid jpuz;l gadpd;wp epWj;jk; bra;ayhk; vd;f fUjp mt;thBw nWjp Miz tHA;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶39

Bkwfz;l tptuj;jpid rhh;e;j Mrphpahpd; gzpg;gjpBtl;oy; gjpt[ bra;J mjd; tptuj;jpid nt;tpaf;fj;jpw;F bjhptpf;FkhWk;, nr;bray;Kiwfs; bgw;Wf;bfhz;likf;F xg;g [jy; mDg;gp itf;FkhWk; rk;ge;jg;gl;l gs;spj; jiyik Mrphpah; Bfl;Lf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;.

¶40

jpUkjp.rp.!;bly;yh, gl;ljhup Mrphpah; vd;ghh; nt;thiz kPJ Bky;KiwaPL bra;a tpUk;gpdhy;, Bky;KiwaPl;L mYtyuhd gs;spf; fy;tp naf;FeUf;F https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

4/6

¶42

W.P.(MD).No.1565 of 2018

¶43

Bky;KiwaPl;L kDit mDg;gyhk; vdj; bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.” ”

¶44

13.This order is assailed before me on the ground that it does not take into account the detailed representation filed by the petitioner on 09.02.2016 running to 31 pages. This is found to be correct as the impugned order does not anywhere to the submissions made or answer the same.

¶45

14.That apart, the basis on which the order is passed is also piquant. The respondents state that she requires to be punished for displaying an attitude that was unbecoming of a teacher and since she had not displayed attributes such as willingness to give and take, which is necessary, particularly in a teacher.

¶46

15.In my view, it was incumbent upon the authority to have restricted himself to an examination only of the veracity or otherwise of the charge that had been laid as against her. Nowhere has the demeanor of the petitioner been found lacking and the officer, in the impugned order goes beyond his brief, delineated as it is, by the charge laid at the first instance.

¶47

16.The impugned order is set aside and this writ petition is allowed by way of remand. The explanation of the petitioner dated 09.12.2016 shall be taken note of, the petitioner heard and an order passed in line with the observations in this order as well as the orders passed by this Court thus far. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the copy of this order upon the official website of this Court.

¶48

17.R5 is also directed to take note of the continuance of Sebastian in Anumanthakudi School and justify his presence there. Appropriate and necessary action be taken in this regard, forthwith.

¶49

18.This Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶52

// True Copy //

¶53

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶54

akv

¶55

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶56

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

¶57

5/6

¶58

W.P.(MD).No.1565 of 2018

¶59

¶60

1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Department of School Education, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Director of School Education, Department of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 06. 3.The Joint Director of School Education, Department of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai -06. 4.The Chief Educational Officer, Chief Educational Office, Collectorate Complex, Maruthupandiyan Nagar, Sivagangai District. 5.The District Educational Officer, District Educational Office, Meenakshi Complex, Devakottai 630 302, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHY ROY, Advocate ( SR-1333[F] dated 12/01/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-1470[F] dated 12/01/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.1565 of 2018 11.01.2022

¶61

RD(11.02.2022) 6P 8C

¶62

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

¶63

6/6

Mrs.S.Stella v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.S.Stella v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Selvam, Vs Government of Tamilnadu

T.Kala Vs The Chief Educational Officer

The Correspondent Vs J.Jeyakanthan,I.a.S

S.Kalpana,D/O.S.Sankaran. Vs the Deputy Registrar

T.Jeyalakshmi, Vs Tamil Nadu Public Service

K.Dennis S/O. Kurus Michael Vs the Accountant General