Allowed

P.Hemalatha v. the Director of Elementary

Madras HC4 Oct 2024WP(MD)/19785/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, quashed a charge memo issued against a school teacher in 2017. The court held that as seven years had elapsed without any further progress in the disciplinary proceedings and no counter affidavit was filed, allowing the case to proceed would serve no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge memo dated 15.09.2017 issued by the second respondent is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

P.Hemalatha Vs the Director of Elementary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 04.10.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16044 of 2017

P.Hemalatha

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Director of Elementary Education College Road, Chennai-600 006

¶11

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Tiruchirapalli, Tiruchirapalli District

¶12

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Musuri, Tiruchirapalli District

¶13

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Musuri, Tiruchirapalli District

¶14

5.The Headmaster

¶15

Panchayat Union Primary School Eluppiyur, Tiruchirappalli District

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned charge

¶21

memo issued by the second respondent DEEO in Na.Ka.No.2839/Aa4/2017 dated 15.09.2017 (signed on 15.09.2017), quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioner : Ms.M.F.Rooshi Mass for M/s.Isaac Chambers

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned charge memo dated 15.09.2017, issued by the second respondent.

¶26

2. The petitioner has been issued with the aforesaid charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1995. Admittedly, the charges framed against the petitioner are minor charges. The petitioner is working as a Teacher in the fifth respondent – School.

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017

¶30

3. The impugned charge memo issued to the petitioner reads as

¶31

follows:

¶32

“1. jiyik Mrphpah; kw;Wk; nilepiy Mrphpah; nUtUk; gs;spapy; Kiwf;Bflhf ele;J bfhz;ljhf bgw;Bwhh;fsplk; Twpa gs;spapy; gof;Fk; khzth;fis jpUoajhf Fw;wk; Rkj;jp gs;spf;F tutplhky; jLj;jJ, bgw;Bwhh;fSf;fF kdcisr;fiy Vw;gLj;jpaJ.

¶33

2. 02.08.2017 md;W khtl;lj; bjhlf;ff; fy;tp mYtyh; Behpy; tprhuiz bra;J chpa mwpt[iufs; tHA;fp bghJeyid fUj;jpy; bfhz;L tHA;fg;gl;l khWjy; cj;jutpid kjpf;fhky; khWjy; tHA;fg;gl;l bjw;F rpj;jhk;g{h; gs;spapy; gzpBaw;fhky; jw;bfhiy bra;J bfhs;tjhf kpul;LtJ. ”

¶34

4. As seen from the impugned charge memo, there seems to have taken place a quarrel between the petitioner and the parents of a student in the school, on account of the petitioner alleging theft against a student, thereby causing mental agony to the parents of the said student. The second charge is that the petitioner disrespected the transfer order passed by the District Elementary Educational Officer, which is claimed to have been issued in public interest.

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017

¶38

5. This writ petition was filed in the year 2017. An interim direction was issued by this Court on 30.10.2017 that any decision adverse to the petitioner as the ultimate outcome in the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the impugned charge memo shall not be given effect, without prior permission of this Court.

¶39

6. As seen from the interim direction issued by this Court, there is no restraint order against the respondents to proceed further with the impugned charge memo in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, it is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that no further progress has taken place subsequent to the issuance of the impugned charge memo in the year 2017. No counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents till date, despite the lapse of almost seven years. The charges framed against the petitioner are also minor charges falling under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1995. No useful purpose will be served, if the impugned charge memo issued to the petitioner is allowed to be proceeded with further at this belated

¶40

Page 4 of 7

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017

¶43

stage that too when the respondents themselves are also not serious in pursuing with the impugned charge memo. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that excepting for the issuance of the impugned

¶44

charge memo against the petitioner, the petitioner is not facing any other disciplinary proceedings and that she has an unblemished track record. The petitioner has also categorically contended in this writ petition that she is noway involved in the allegations levelled against her under the impugned charge memo. For the foregoing reasons, this Court has to necessarily quash the impugned charge memo.

¶45

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned

¶46

charge memo, dated 15.09.2017, issued by the second respondent, is hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶47

04.10.2024

¶48

(1/2)

¶49

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶50

krk

¶51

Page 5 of 7

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017

¶54

To:

¶55

1.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶56

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

¶57

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Musuri, tiruchirapalli District.

¶58

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Musuri, Tiruchirapalli District.

¶59

5.The Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Eluppiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶60

Page 6 of 7

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017

¶63

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶64

krk

¶65

W.P.(MD) No.19785 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16044 of 2017

¶66

04.10.2024

¶67

(1/2)

¶68

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶69

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

P.Hemalatha v. the Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Hemalatha v. the Director of 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

A.Aandi Vs the Chief Education Officer

R.Arulraj Vs The Director of Elementary Education

T.Balamurugan, Vs The Director of Elementary Education

J. Moovendhan Vs the Director

S.Ragunathan, Vs the Superintending Engineer

S.Vimala Vs the Director of Elementary