Allowed

S.Vimala v. the Director of Elementary

Madras HC4 Oct 2024WP(MD)/19786/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a charge memo issued against a teacher in 2017. The Court quashed the memo due to a lapse of seven years and the lack of seriousness in pursuing the proceedings, suggesting no useful purpose would be served.

What did the court decide?

The impugned charge memo dated 15.09.2017 issued by the second respondent is quashed. No costs are awarded.

S.Vimala Vs the Director of Elementary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19786 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.19786 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16045 of 2017

S.Vimala

... Petitioner

-vs-

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

¶11

2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Tiruchirapalli

¶12

Tiruchirapalli District

¶13

3.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Musuri

¶14

Tiruchirapalli District

¶15

4.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer Musuri

¶16

Tiruchirapalli District

¶17

_____________ Page 1 of 7_

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.19786 of 2017

¶20

5.The Headmistress Panchayat Union Middle School Therkusithampur, Tiruchirappalli District

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

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 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.

¶23

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

¶27

under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1995. Admittedly, the charges framed against the petitioner

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.19786 of 2017

¶31

are minor charges. The petitioner is working as a Teacher in the fifth respondent – School.

¶32

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

¶33

follows:

¶34

“1. jpUkjp.bt.Bjtfp, jiyik Mrphpah; mth;fSf;Fk; nilepiy Mrphpah; jpUkjp v!;.tpkyh vd;gtuhfpa jA;fSf;Fk; jdpg;gl;l tpBuhjk; fhuzkhf xUtiu xUth; Fw;wk; rhl;LtJk;, gs;sp ephpthfj;jpw;F Fe;jfk; tpistpj;J gs;sp khzth;fspd; fy;tp eydpy; mf;fiw bfhs;shjJ, jdf;F rhjfkhf Ch; bghJkf;fis Jhz;otpLtJ.

¶35

2. jhd; gzpg[hpa[k; Mrphpah; gzpf;F Fe;jfk; kw;Wk; fyA;fk; Vw;gLj;Jk; tifapy; gs;spapy; fy;tp gapYk; khzth;fspd; bgw;Bwhh;fsplk; jhDk; cA;fs; rhjp (v!;.rp) vdf; Twp CUf;Fs; gpst[ Vw;gLj;jpajhf bghJkf;fs; g[fhh; mspj;Js;sJ. Bkw;fz;l bray;fspdhy; gs;spf;F g{l;L BghLk; Bghuhl;lk; elj;JBthk; vd bghJkf;fs; khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiythplk; kD bfhLj;j bra;jp 03.08.2017 ehisa jpdj;je;jp bra;jpj;jhspy; btspahf fhuzkhf nUe;jJ. nj;jifa bray; muRg; gzpf;Fk;, bghJ eyDf;Fk;, khzth;fspd; fy;tp eyDf;Fk; Fe;jfk; tpistpf;Fk; braypy; NlgLtJ.

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.(MD) No.19786 of 2017

¶39

vg;BghJk; gs;sp tFg;g[ BeuA;fspy; khzth;fSf;fF fy;tp fw;Wf;bfhLf;Fk; jdJ flikia bra;ahJ, bry;Bghdpy; Bgrpf;bfhz;L nUg;gJ, jdJ flikiz bra;a jtwpaJ.”

¶40

4. As seen from the impugned charge memo, there seems to have taken place a quarrel between the petitioner and Headmistress of the school and the petitioner's conduct has disrupted the unity in the school and the petitioner was talking over phone during class hours without teaching the students..

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.19786 of 2017

¶46

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 stage that too when that 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 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.

¶47

_____________ Page 5 of 7_

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.19786 of 2017

¶50

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge memo, dated 15.09.2017, issued by the second respondent, is hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

04.10.2024

¶52

(2/2) NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶53

krk

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

5.The Headmistress, Panchayat Union Middle School, Therkusithampur, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶59

_____________ Page 6 of 7_

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.(MD) No.19786 of 2017

¶62

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶63

krk

¶64

W.P.(MD) No.19786 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.16045 of 2017

¶65

04.10.2024

¶66

(2/2)

¶67

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶68

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

S.Vimala v. the Director of Elementary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vimala 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

P.Hemalatha Vs the Director of Elementary