Allowed

I.Shakila v. The District Elementary

Madras HC24 Jun 2024WP/18407/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aided school teacher punished with one year's stoppage of increment without charge memo or enquiry over alleged census-work delegation. The Court found the order biased, arbitrary and vindictive, quashed it, and directed sanction of annual increment from 01.04.2015 with all monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned punishment order quashed; second respondent directed to sanction annual increment from 01.04.2015 and all other monetary benefits; no costs.

I.Shakila Vs The District Elementary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 24.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶7

Tmt. I.Shakila ...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Elementary Education Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

¶10

2.The Manager, Sultanpet Muslim Aided Primary School, Thiruvannamalai.

¶11

3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Thiruvannamalai. ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide letter

¶13

1/9

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶16

No.31/2015, dated 16.06.2015 and quash the same and direct the 2^nd respondent to sanction annual increment due to the petitioner from 01.04.2015 and all other monetary benefits.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. R.D.Ashok Kumar for Mr. S.N.Ravichandran

¶18

For Respondents : M/s. P.Rajarajeswari 1 & 3 Government Advocate For Respondent 2: No Appearance.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent issuing order of punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 1 year without cumulative effect, the petitioner is before this Court. The 2^nd respondent is a Muslim Aided Educational Institution, against which no appeal would lie and therefore the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

¶21

2/9

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶24

In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner a brief recapitulation of the facts set out in the affidavit is required. The petitioner would submit that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 2^nd respondent School on 01.06.1988 and her appointment was approved with effect from the said date. Her husband Abdul Kareem has joined the 2^nd respondent institution on 03.01.1988 as a Secondary Grade Teacher. He was promoted as a Secondary Grade Head master on 01.06.1988 in a retirement vacancy. His appointment as a Head Master was approved on completing his 5 years teaching service on 03.01.1993.

¶25

The petitioner would submit that after management of the 2^nd respondent institution had been transferred from the erstwhile management to the present management, there appears to be a lot of bad blood between the petitioner, her husband and the management. It started with the petitioner's husband being reverted to the Secondary Grade Teacher by order dated 01.02.2003. This order was challenged by her husband in W.P.No.39031 of 2003 and the said order was set

¶26

3/9

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶29

aside by orders of this Court dated 11.01.2010 and the matter was remitted back for fresh enquiry. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer had held all the charges against her husband to be not proved except with regard to one issue where the Enquiry Officer had partially allowed it.

¶30

The 2^nd respondent however went ahead to revert the petitioner's husband from the post of Headmaster to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher by an order dated 31.03.2011. Ultimately, the petitioner's husband had to move this Court and has filed a contempt petition after which he was appointed as a Headmaster. However, this was followed by 6 memos being issued to him and the 2^nd respondent had placed him on suspension which was not revoked till filing of the Writ Petition.

¶31

The petitioner would submit that she was also not spared. A

¶32

show cause notice dated 02.03.2015 was issued to her stating that she had not participated in the census taking which she was required to do. To this the petitioner had sent a reply dated 05.03.2015 denying

¶33

4/9

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶36

allegations and stating that she had done her work. The 2^nd respondent proceeded to issue two further show cause notices dated 26.03.2015 and 22.04.2015, to which the petitioner had submitted an explanation on 02.04.2015 and 29.04.2015 respectively. Thereafter, without even issuing a charge memo or holding enquiry, the 2^nd respondent has

¶37

passed the impugned order, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

No counter has been filed by the respondents.

¶39

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1^st and 3^rd

¶40

respondents would submit that they have not received any letter from

¶41

the 2^nd respondent for approving the order of punishment.

¶42

Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.

¶43

The very order passed by the 2^nd respondent clearly shows the

¶44

5/9

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶47

bias, arbitrariness and vindictiveness of the 2^nd respondent. The charge against the petitioner originally was that she has not done the census to which she sent a reply stating that she had completed the work. In the second and third show cause notices, the 2^nd respondent had developed the charge by stating that the petitioner had delegated the work to some other person and later claimed that the third person who is her husband and that she had used her husband to do census. The petitioner in her explanation clearly stated that her husband who was only taking her in his two wheeler to do the census work. By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that it is delegation of the work.

¶48

It is also seen that the 2^nd respondent has not followed the orders passed by the 1^st and 3^rd respondents sanctioning the annual increment to the petitioner. This is yet another fact that shows the bias of the 2^nd respondent.

¶49

6/9

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶52

Considering the fact that the petitioner's husband has faced several charges it can be safely concluded that this is also one form of a vindictive action taken by the 2^nd respondent. That apart, the 2^nd respondent has neither held enquiry nor given opportunity to the petitioner to put forward her explanation in person. Therefore, the impugned order which has been passed without following procedure is arbitrary and has to necessarily quashed and is accordingly quashed.

¶53

In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. The 2^nd respondent is directed to sanction annual increment to the petitioner from 01.04.2015 and all other monetary benefits. No costs.

¶54

24.06.2024

¶55

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

¶56

7/9

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶59

¶60

1.The District Elementary Education Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

¶61

2.The Manager, Sultanpet Muslim Aided Primary School, Thiruvannamalai.

¶62

3.The Assistant Elementary Education Officer, Thiruvannamalai.

¶63

P.T. ASHA, J,

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

8/9

¶66

W.P.No.18407 of 2015

¶67

kan

¶68

W.P.No. 18407 of 2015

¶69

24.06.2024

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

9/9

I.Shakila v. The District Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Shakila v. The District Elementary

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

Mullaikodi Ravi Vs The Secretary to Government

C.Jayaraman, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Barani Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

K.Pattraberhan, Vs The Joint Registrar of

Pondicherry Textiles Mills Vs Anglo French Textiles of

R.Marappan Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu