High Court in Writ Appeal allowed the Single Judge order regularizing suspension period as duty for a teacher who received censure in departmental proceedings and was acquitted in criminal case.
Direction to regularise suspension period as duty period disallowed; appeal dismissed.
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.
WA No. 1404 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.06.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. R. MAHADEVAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No.1404 of 2024
Versus
K. Balu .. Respondent
Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 22.8.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.28277 of 2019.
For the Appellants : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Addl. Government Pleader
For the Respondent : Mr.C.Mahendran
JUDGMENT
1/6
WA No. 1404 of 2024
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
Heard Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. C. Mahendran, learned counsel for the respondent.
2/6
WA No. 1404 of 2024
punishable under Section 498 A and 506 (i) of IPC. Upon registration of the case, the respondent was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Consequently, the appellants placed him under suspension from 10.06.2015 onwards. In this context, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and it culminated in imposition of punishment of "censure". After conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was reinstated in service. However, the period of suspension from 10.06.2015 till 10.09.2017 has not been regularised in spite of representations made. In the meantime, the criminal case launched against the respondent also ended in acquittal. Hence, the writ petition was filed seeking to regularise the period of suspension.
3/6
6.
WA No. 1404 of 2024
appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that inasmuch as the respondent has accepted the punishment of censure and has not appealed against the same, the period of suspension ought not to have been directed to be treated as on duty.
not in dispute, but the question that arises for consideration is whether, while imposing minor penalty of censure, the disciplinary authority could still treat the period of suspension as 'not on duty'. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the punishment of censure does not have any monetary effect and will be in force only for a period of one year. Thereafter, the normal benefits which
are to be granted to the respondent will have to be paid. While so, the appellants cannot deny the monetary benefits to which the respondent is
otherwise entitled to. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4/6
WA No. 1404 of 2024
( R.M.D., ACJ .) ( M.S.Q., J .) 03.06.2024
Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No
sasi/rsh
5/6
WA No. 1404 of 2024
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
(sasi)/rsh
WA No. 1404 of 2024
03.06.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a teacher who received a minor penalty of censure and an acquittal in a criminal case is entitled to regularisation of suspension period for monetary benefits.
1. The Chief Educational Officer Dharmapuri and 2. The Headmaster Government Higher Secondary School Thammanampatty Dharmapuri District
K. Balu
R. MAHADEVAN
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
