A school teacher punished with stoppage of increment for two years appealed to the Joint Director of School Education, who rejected the appeal as time-barred. The High Court held that Rule 19 of the TNCS (D&A) Rules prescribes no limitation for such appeals and remitted the appeal for fresh consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.(MD).No.889 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 08.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD)No.889 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)No.908 of 2024
R.Velmurugan
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relates to the impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.077137/W2/E3/2023 dated 18.12.2023 issued by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider and pass order on the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 01.12.2023 on merits.
1/6
WP.(MD).No.889 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnana Guru Nathan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.077137/W2/E3/2023 dated 18.12.2023 issued by the first respondent and to direct the first respondent to consider and pass order on the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 01.12.2023.
2.Heard Mr.M.Gnana Guru Nathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the entire materials available on record.
3.The petitioner is working as a Post Graduate Assistant (Biology) in the third respondent School. Vide proceedings dated 22.03.2022, the second respondent issued a charge memo against the petitioner for three counts of charges. For which, the petitioner duly submitted his explanations on 30.03.2022. However, rejecting
2/6
WP.(MD).No.889 of 2024
the said explanation, the second respondent placed the petitioner under suspension. Thereafter, the first respondent vide proceedings dated 28.09.2022, had set aside the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner into service. After reinstatement, the second respondent vide proceedings dated 26.10.2022, had imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect on the basis of Enquiry Officer's report. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 01.12.2023, before the first respondent. However, the first respondent without considering the appeal on merits has rejected the same on the grounds of limitation. Hence, this Writ Petition came to be filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been visited with a charge memo and on receipt of explanation from the petitioner, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, reinstated on 28.09.2022. Following which, the second respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect under Rule 8 of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955. However, the provision under Section 19 of the aforesaid
3/6
WP.(MD).No.889 of 2024
Rules do not contemplate any limitation for preferring an appeal as against the same. In view of the same, the order of rejection of appeal submitted by the petitioner on the grounds of limitation is unwarranted and sought for interfere by this Court.
5.Per contra the learned Government Advocate Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, fairly conceded and submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the first respondent for re-consideration.
6.In view of the same, rightly appreciating the submission of the petitioner that Rule 19 of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955, do not contemplate limitation for preferring appeal as against the punishment imposed under Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rule, I hereby quash the impugned order and remand back the same to the first respondent for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4/6
WP.(MD).No.889 of 2024
7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Mrn
To
5/6
WP.(MD).No.889 of 2024
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
W.P.(MD)No.889 of 2024
08.02.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellate authority could reject the employee's appeal against punishment solely on grounds of limitation when Rule 19 of the TNCS (D&A) Rules prescribes no limitation for appeals.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Velmurugan
The Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary), Chennai
The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District
The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Paganeri, Sivagangai District
L.VICTORIA GOWRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
