Madras High Court
The Govt. Of Tamilnadu vs L.Girinivasan on 2 December, 2021
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A.No.2718 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.17698 of 2021
1.The Govt. of Tamilnadu,
Rep.by the Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai -600 006.
3. Joint Director (Personnel)
College Road, Chennai -6. .. Appellants
v.
L.Girinivasan .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.10.2020 made in W.P.No.4745 of 2015 on the file of this
Court.
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
For Appellants : Mr. J. Ravindran, AAG
Assisted by Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Counsel
for Mr. S.N. Ravichandran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.No.4745 of 2015, the
respondents in the Writ Petition have filed the above Writ Appeal.
2. The respondent filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the
1st appellant in connection with the orders dated 20.08.2013 and
18.11.2014 and directing the respondents to give all the monetary and
services benefits with effect from the date of promotion given to his
juniors.
3.1 It is the case of the respondent-writ petitioner that he was
selected for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant by way of
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
Compassionate Appointment and joined service in the year 1981 and
subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant in the year 1994 and as
Superintendent in the year 2001. He joined as Superintendent in the
office of District Project Coordinator, Vellore on 01.02.2008 and worked
in the said office till 28.05.2008. Thereafter, he was transferred as
Superintendent in the office of Chief Educational Officer, Vellore.
Based on the allegations published in the newspaper, the Government
has passed G.O.Ms.No.385 dated 01.12.2008, directing to take
disciplinary action under Rule 9(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A)
Rules against the respondent-writ petitioner along with other five
officers, who were involved in misappropriation relating to disbursement
of Travelling Allowances to the Teacher Trainee in the office of the
District Project Coordinator, Vellore District. Pursuant to the order of
the Government, the 2nd appellant, by his proceedings dated 18.02.2008,
framed charges against the respondent-writ petitioner under Rule 17(b)
of the Rules by framing five charges against the individuals. The charges
against the respondent-writ petitioner was that the Travelling Allowances
statement was not approved by the District Project Coordinator and the
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
acknowledgements were not obtained from the concerned teachers who
received money.
3.2 The respondent-writ petitioner contended that he was not
responsible for the procedure in disbursement of the Travelling
Allowance to the Teachers concerned, and he had only followed the
instructions of his Superiors, i.e., the Superintendent in the office of the
Chief Educational Officer, Vellore. The respondent-writ petitioner gave
his explanation to the charges framed against him, however, finding not
satisfied, departmental enquiry was initiated against him. However, in
the enquiry, there was neither oral evidence nor any document was
marked on the side of the appellants.
3.3 The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.05.2011
holding that the respondent-writ petitioner guilty of charges. Pursuant
to th report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, a further show cause
notice dated 30.06.2011 was issued annexing copy of the Enquiry Report
and the respondent-writ petitioner was directed to submit his
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
explanation. Accordingly, the respondent-writ petitioner submitted his
explanation on 18.07.2011. The 1st appellant, not being satisfied with
the explanation given by the respondent-writ petitioner, imposed a
punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 2 years with
cumulative effect, by his order dated 20.08.2013. The Review Petition
filed by the respondent-writ petitioner was also rejected by the 1st
appellant.
4. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it is clear that
the appellants have neither let in oral evidence nor produced any
documents to prove the charges framed against the respondent-writ
petitioner. On a perusal of the Enquiry Report also, it is clear that the
appellants did not produce any oral or documentary evidences at the time
of enquiry. In spite of the failure committed by the appellants in letting
in oral or documentary evidences, the Enquiry Officer, erroneously
found the respondent-writ petitioner guilty of all charges. In other
words, the Enquiry Officer only based on the charges framed against the
respondent-writ petitioner, without any corroborative evidence, found the
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
respondent-writ petitioner guilty of all the charges. The 1st appellant
based on the said report, had imposed the punishment of stoppage of
increment for 2 years with cumulative effect. In the absence of any oral
or documentary evidence let in by the appellants, the Enquiry Officer
should not have found the respondent-writ petitioner guilty of the
charges and also the 1st appellant should not have imposed the
punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect.
5. The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration all these
aspects, rightly set aside the impugned order passed by the appellants 1
and 2. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the
same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
02.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Rj
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2718 of 2021and
C. M.P.Nos. 7529 of 2013
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
Rj
W.A.No.2718 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.17698 of 2021
02.12.2021
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
