Allowed

Senthamil Selvan.M v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Nov 2024WP(MD)/2420/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order of stoppage of increment in disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment for conducting an audit without permission despite no specific guidelines requiring prior permission, and for a charge found not proved by the Enquiry Officer without assigning reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of punishment (stoppage of increment for two years) set aside.

Senthamil Selvan.M Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2096 and 2098 of 2022

¶8

M.Senthamil Selvan ... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai.

¶12

The Commissioner of School Education, O/o. Commissioner of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road,

¶13

Chennai – 6.

¶14

The Joint Director of School Education (Personal) O/o. Joint Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶15

1/8

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶18

The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶19

The Additional Chief Educational Officer, O/o. The Chief Educational Officer, Thallakulam, Madurai.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings in e/f/vz;/14339?m3?,3/2016 dated 10.05.2018 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings in m/jp/K/vz;/0430609?m3?,3?20 dated 23.11.2020 and quash the same as illegal.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramani, Special Government Pleader

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is working as Desk Superintendent in the School Education Department at Madurai. When he was working in the Audit Wing, he is said to have audited in five Aided Schools in the year 2016, for

¶26

2/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶29

which, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated as against the petitioner for the following three charges.

¶30

(i) that he was unauthorizedly absent for a period of 12 days;

¶31

(ii) that he has conducted a audit meeting without permission; and

¶32

(iii) that he has not submitted the audit report in time.

¶33

The Enquiry Officer found that the charge Nos.1 and 3 are not proved, however, he has filed a proved minute for the charge No.2 that he has conducted a audit meeting without prior permission from the higher officials. Though the charge No.3 is not proved, the 3^rd respondent, namely, the disciplinary authority, vide his proceedings in e/f/vz;/14339?m3?, 3/2016 dated 10.05.2018 has taken a different view and imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect for the charge Nos.2 and 3. According to the petitioner, he obtained prior permission to conduct audit proceedings. However, at the time of enquiry, the petitioner was posted at Chennai and therefore, he was not in a position to produce the relevant document before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, he submitted a detailed representation to the 3^rd respondent requesting him to give one more opportunity to prove his case. However, the 3^rd respondent, by his proceedings in m/jp/K/vz;/0430609?m3?,3?20

¶34

3/8

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶37

dated 23.11.2020, rejected the request of the petitioner. As against the order of punishment dated 10.05.2018, the petitioner is having an appeal remedy, However, he has filed this writ petition that the enquiry has been conducted in a hurried manner, without providing sufficient opportunity to him.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time of enquiry, the petitioner was posted at Chennai and he was not provided sufficient opportunity to place the document with regard to the permission which was obtained for the second charge. He further submits that the third charge is found to be not proved by the Enquiry Officer, however, the 3^rd respondent has taken a different view and has imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect for the third charge.

¶39

The learned Special Government Pleader submits that as against

¶40

the order of punishment, the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the second respondent. However, the petitioner, without invoking the same, has straight away filed this writ petition.

¶41

4/8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶44

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶45

This writ petition is filed as against the order of punishment imposed by the the 3^rd respondent vide his proceedings in e/f/vz;/14339? m3?,3/2016 dated 10.05.2018 As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the second respondent as against the order of punishment. However, this Court, by order dated 04.02.2022, entertained this writ petition and also ordered notice to the second respondent. Since this Court has already entertained this writ petition, this Court is inclined to proceed on the punishment imposed as against the petitioner.

¶46

The petitioner was issued with a charge memo for three charges, viz., (i) that he was unauthorizedly absent for a period of 12 days, (ii) that he has conducted audit meeting without permission and (iii) that he has not submitted the audit report in time. The Enquiry Officer has found that the charge Nos.1 and 3 are not proved. However, the 3^rd respondent, namely, the disciplinary authority has taken a different view from the view of the Enquiry Officer for the charge No.3 and also for the charge No.2, has 5/8

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶49

imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect.

¶50

This Court verified with the learned Special Government Pleader

¶51

as to the guidelines if any, to the Audit section for obtaining prior permission from the higher officials before conducting an audit.

¶52

It appears that the Department has not framed any guidelines, the manner in which the audit has to be conducted. In the absence of any specific guidelines or requirements mandating the Audit Officer to obtain prior permission, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed by the 3^rd respondent is not proper.

¶53

Further, the petitioner is also punished for the third charge that he has failed to file his report. The Enquiry Officer found that the report has been filed. But, the 3^rd respondent has not assigned any reasons for taking a different view from the view of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore this Court is inclined to allow this writ petition.

¶54

6/8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶57

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order

¶58

of punishment passed by the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings in e/f/vz;/14339?m3?,3/2016 dated 10.05.2018 is hereby set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶59

20.11.2024

¶60

ogy Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No. To

¶61

The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶62

The Commissioner of School Education, O/o. Commissioner of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶63

The Joint Director of School Education (Personal) O/o. Joint Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶64

7/8

¶65

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

¶66

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶67

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶68

ogy

¶69

The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. The Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶70

The Additional Chief Educational Officer, O/o. The Chief Educational Officer, Thallakulam, Madurai.

¶71

W.P.(MD)No.2420 of 2022

¶72

20.11.2024

¶73

8/8

¶74

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

Senthamil Selvan.M v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthamil Selvan.M v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Meenakshisundaram.B Vs the Agriculture Production Commissioner

Chockalingam .S.P Vs Indian Overseas Bank Limited

S.Arulananthu, Vs the District Collector

Chandrapaul.M Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police

Siva.M Vs the Deputy General Manager/Appellate Authority

Saravanamariappan.K Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration