Allowed

K.Jeyaram v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Dec 2025WP(MD)/31085/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Headmaster suspended for allegedly failing to deliver breakfast to 110 children on a rain-hit day challenged the suspension. The court found the respondents did not deny the petitioner's averments about waterlogging and parental protest, and that only one incident was alleged, and set aside the suspension with reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned suspension order set aside; respondents directed to forthwith reinstate petitioner as Headmaster; no costs; connected MPs closed.

K.Jeyaram Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON : 07.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶7

and WMP.(MD).Nos.24298 & 24300 of 2025

K.Jeyaram

..Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary, Department of School Education Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

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

¶14

4.The District Educational Officer (Elementary) Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

5.The Block Educational Officer-III Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

¶16

..Respondents

¶17

Page 1 of 9

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent DEO in R.C.No. 003659/A2/2025 dated 16.10.2025 suspending the petitioner from service from the post of Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Muhavoor Kamarajar Nagar, quash the same as illegal and further direct the 4^th respondent DEO to reinstate the petitioner into service as Headmaster of Panchayat Union Primary School, Muhavoor Kamarajar Nagar, with salary and all other consequential benefits.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent DEO in R.C.No.003659/A2/2025 dated 16.10.2025, suspending the petitioner from service from the post of Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Muhavoor Kamarajar Nagar and to direct the 4^th respondent DEO to reinstate the petitioner into service as Headmaster of Panchayat Union Primary School, Muhavoor Kamarajar Nagar, with salary and all other consequential benefits.

¶24

Page 2 of 9

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher at the Panchayat Union School and was promoted as Headmaster in the year 2006. While he was working as the Headmaster of the Panchayat Union Primary School at Muhavoor Kamarajar Nagar, an order of suspension came to be passed against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had committed serious irregularities by wilfully involving himself in the acts of negligence and dereliction by failing to deliver breakfast to 110 children in the school on 14.10.2025, which led to starvation of the children studying in the school.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that he had been instrumental in addressing various difficulties faced by the students, including the dilapidated condition of the building, and had also compelled the Revenue Administration to take steps for construction of a new building. He would submit that this had irked the officials in the Education Department, who had issued the order of suspension, originally issued on 20.07.2016. Protests were made by the villagers and parents of the students and having no other option, the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated into service.

¶29

Page 3 of 9

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶32

The said incident took place at the earlier Panchayat Union Primary School at Ayyankollamkondan, and thereafter he was transferred to the present school, where also the petitioner had been performing his duties. Here again, as there were no adequate infrastructure facilities, when the Hon’ble Chief Minister had visited the area, he had handed over a complaint, upon which a grant of Rs.38 lakhs was also sanctioned. He would submit that the petitioner has also been conferred with the “Arignar Anna Thalaimai Thathuva Virudhu” (Best Leadership Award), which also carried a cash prize of Rs.10 lakhs.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said amount had been wholly utilised by the petitioner for construction of a compound wall with high-quality gates, apart from installing nine CCTV cameras, providing tables for students, and installing a water purifier in the school. That apart, the petitioner had also been instrumental in procuring sand and levelling the entire school premises within its compound wall. The aforesaid developments also earned a certificate of appreciation for his exemplary performance from the Minister for Revenue. He would submit that on 14.10.2025, there was heavy rain in the locality and the water stagnated inside the school compound, due to which the children could not enter the

¶34

Page 4 of 9

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶37

school. There was also agitation by the parents of the children as the school was inundated. The same was informed to the fifth respondent. The parents had refused to allow the children to enter the school and therefore, there was a delay in the children having breakfast on the said date. In spite of having knowledge of all these facts, the fourth respondent issued an order of suspension on 16.10.2025. He would further submit that for the good things that has been done by the petitioner, which had irked higher officials, the petitioner was again placed under suspension. He seeks the indulgence of this Court to quash the order of suspension.

¶38

Countering his arguments, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the petitioner cannot rely upon past credentials alone. On 14.10.2025, the petitioner had wilfully committed grave irregularities by neglecting his duty to provide breakfast on time to 110 children studying under the Government’s Chief Minister’s Breakfast Scheme, causing hardship and embarrassment to the institution. Considering the gravity of the allegations that were received against the petitioner, there was a necessity to conduct an enquiry, for which reason the petitioner had been placed under suspension.

¶39

Page 5 of 9

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶42

As per Rule 17(e)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and

¶43

Appeal) Rules, the order of suspension is only a temporary administrative measure taken in the interest of a fair and unbiased enquiry. He would submit that an order of suspension cannot be equated with an order of punishment so as to contend that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Only on the ground that the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, the petitioner had been placed under suspension. Hence he would submit that there is no necessity to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition and prayed this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶44

The challenge is to an order of suspension that had been made against the petitioner on the ground that he had committed a serious irregularity by wilfully neglecting his duty to deliver the breakfast in time to 110 children, which allegedly caused irreparable loss to the flagship programme of the Government. The petitioner had claimed that on the said date, there has been water stagnation due to heavy rain and that the parents protested and refused to send their children into the school.

¶45

Page 6 of 9

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶48

When such specific averments have been made in the affidavit filed in

¶49

support of the writ petition, this Court is surprised to note that there has been no denial of such averments, which would only lead this Court to the conclusion that the averments made by the petitioner are true.

¶50

The counter affidavit has also not disputed the claim made by the petitioner regarding his service as Headmaster. Further, the allegations on the basis of which the petitioner had been placed under suspension is a solitary incident and there are no other complaints against the petitioner, either in the order impugned nor in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be habitually neglecting his duties so as to warrant the order of suspension passed in the impugned proceedings.

¶51

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent in R.C.No.003659/A2/2025 dated 16.10.2025 is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service.

¶52

Page 7 of 9

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶55

However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,

¶56

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶57

19.12.2025

¶58

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No kak

¶59

¶60

1.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶61

2.The District Educational Officer(Secondary) Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶62

3.The Correspondent, Schaffter Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶63

__________ Page 8 of 9

¶64

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

¶65

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶66

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶67

kak

¶68

W.P.(MD).No.31085 of 2025

¶69

19.12.2025

¶70

__________ Page 9 of 9

¶71

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

K.Jeyaram v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jeyaram 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

The Correspondent Vs The Director of School Education

S.M.Mohideen Sahib Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

U.Venkatalakshmi Vs Radha

R.Shanmuganathan Vs The Director

Mumtaj Begam M Vs The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary

M.Karuppasamy Vs The State of Tamil Nadu