Partly allowed

Paulchamy .v v. The Commissioner of School Education

Madras HC27 Nov 2024WP(MD)/13146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a recovery order against the petitioner, a deceased Group-D watchman. The High Court set aside the order relying on Supreme Court dicta against recovering from Group-D employees and the abatement of departmental proceedings after the petitioner's death.

What did the court decide?

The impugned recovery order is set aside insofar as it concerns the petitioner, and the writ petition is partly allowed.

Paulchamy .v Vs The Commissioner of School Education — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022 and WMP(MD)Nos.9338 and 17317 of 2022

V.Paulchamy

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶11

2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶12

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶13

4.The District Educational Officer, Thallakulam, Madurai District.

¶14

5.The Headmaster, Government High School, Karuppatti, Madurai -625 205. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022

¶19

the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.18784/a3/e3/2013, dated 08.01.2021, quash the same insofar as directing the petitioner to pay the loss along with 3 others to the tune of Rs.7,52,706/- and further direct the respondents herein to regularise the suspension period from 27.02.2013 to 12.08.2013 and to sanction forthwith the annual increment from the year 01.01.2014 to till date along with all arrears of monetary as well as attendant benefits.

¶20

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Amala For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner was a watchman in the 5^th respondent Government School. He was held responsible for missing of laptops along with four others. A recovery order was issued as against this petitioner on 08.01.2021 and three others, the same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022

¶26

2.When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pending this writ petition the petitioner died and therefore, the charge itself is abated.

¶27

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner and three others were held responsible for the missing of laptops, since the laptops were found missing during their period, they were held responsible and departmental proceedings were initiated and recovery order was passed against them. A criminal case is also registered.

¶28

4.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

¶29

5.The petitioner was in duty in the particular school as a Watchman from 03.11.2012 to 2.12.2012. The criminal case for missing of the alleged laptops was lodged only on 25.02.2013. For this missing of laptops, the petitioner was held responsible. The

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022

¶33

counter affidavit of the respondents reveals that the criminal case registered in this regard has been closed un-detected. Pending the departmental proceedings the writ petitioner passed away. Subsequently the departmental proceedings initiated as against the petitioner has been dropped and an abatement order has been passed by the Joint Director, School Education Department in Na.Ka.No.18784/A3/E3/2013, dated 24.01.2024.

¶34

Admittedly the petitioner is a Group-D employee. As per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recovery should be not made from the Group-D employees. The criminal case was registered only after the period of three months of the petitioner's period in the particular school. Further the criminal case registered in this regard is also closed as un-detected. The departmental proceedings initiated as against this petitioner has been dropped as charges abated. Therefore, the recovery order passed as against this petitioner is liable to be set aside. Therefore the impugned order is set aside as far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022

¶38

7.The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently

¶39

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

27.11.2024

Internet : Yes / No

DSK

1.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶45

2.The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶46

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶47

4.The District Educational Officer, Thallakulam, Madurai District.

¶48

5.The Headmaster, Government High School, Karuppatti, Madurai -625 205.

¶49

5/6

¶50

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

¶51

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022

¶52

B.PUGALENDHI.J.,

¶53

DSK

¶54

WP(MD)No.13146 of 2022

¶55

27.11.2024

¶56

6/6

¶57

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

Paulchamy .v v. The Commissioner of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulchamy .v v. The Commissioner of School Education

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

C.Arumugam, Vs The Managing Director

Manoharan.S Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Ponraj.C Vs The District Collector

Ayyanar M Vs the Director of Technical Education

Subburaj.G Vs the Director of Technical Education

Shantha.D Vs The Commissioner of School Education