M.Chinnamuthu vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its
2021 Latest Caselaw 12521 Mad

                                                                        W.P.No.12915 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 28.06.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                                     THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                             W.P. No.12915 of 2021


                     M.Chinnamuthu                                            .. Petitioner

                                                           Versus

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

                     2.The Director of School Education,
                       College Road,
                       Chennai – 6.

                     3.The Chief Educational Officer,
                       Chief Educational Office,
                       Dharmapuri District.                                .. Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for

the records pertaining to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in

his proceedings Na.Ka.No.6972/AA1/2018 dated 01.12.2020 and

quash the same, and direct the Respondents to confer all

consequential benefits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                        W.P.No.12915 of 2021

                                          For Petitioner             : Mr.P.Ganesan
                                          For Respondents         : Mr.C.Kathiravan
                                                                    Government Advocate
                                                             O RD E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the

order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings

Na.Ka.No.6972/AA1/2018 dated 01.12.2020 and quash the same,

and direct the Respondents to confer all consequential benefits.

2.The petitioner was initially appointed as B.T. Assistant at the

Government Higher Secondary School, Uthakarai, Dharmapuri

District on 10.09.1984. He was promoted as PG Assistant and

posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Indur, Dharmapuri

District on 27.07.2006. Subsequently, he was posted as

Headmaster at Government Higher Secondary School at

Manavaranapalli, Krishnagiri District on 20.06.2014. He was again

transferred to Arasampatti, Krishnagiri District and thereafter to

Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Karimangalam,

Dharmapuri. However, he was placed under suspension by the 3rd

respondent and not permitted to retire from service as per the

proceedings dated 29.06.2016. Therefore, it is admitted that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

petitioner was remaining in service under Rule 56(1)(c) of

Fundamental Rules. On 27.06.2017, charges were framed by the 2nd

respondent. The petitioner challenged the charge memo and the

order of suspension in separate writ petitions. Both the writ

petitions were disposed of with certain directions. Thereafter, the

charges against the petitioner were dropped by the 1st respondent

and the order of suspension was revoked by an order dated

04.01.2018.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

petitioner submitted his representation for re-employment as it was

allowed in terms of Government Orders to serve till the completion

of academic year. Since the charges were dropped and the

petitioner was allowed to retire, the petitioner has now made a

representation to the respondent for retirement benefits and other

benefits including the pay for the period from 01.07.2016 to

31.05.2017 (i.e., for a period of 11 months) and for re-employment

on the ground that he would have been allowed to serve for the said

period by way of re-employment as it is permissible as per

Government Orders, but for the charges framed which were

dropped after his retirement.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

4.The petitioner's representation was not considered, and

thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5072 of

2020. This Court, by an order dated 28.02.2020 directed the

petitioner to make a fresh representation to the 4th respondent

therein and directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders or to

act upon the representation in accordance with law, within a period

of six weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation

on 16.03.2020 to the 2nd respondent. The representation of the

petitioner regarding pay for the period from 01.07.2016 to

31.05.2017 was rejected by impugned order on the ground that the

petitioner did not work for the said period and that he cannot get

the salary for the period without getting an order of employment

and without serving. The petitioner is now challenging the impugned

order on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to get salary for

the period of re-employment.

5.The case of the petitioner is that he was suspended just a

day before retirement on the ground of disciplinary proceedings and

that the charge memo that was issued to the petitioner was

dropped subsequently. The sum and substance of the contentions of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner had

applied for re-employment before retirement and the said

application was not considered by the respondent on the ground of

disciplinary proceedings that were contemplated which also resulted

in keeping the petitioner under suspension just one day before his

retirement.

6.The learned counsel also relied upon an unreported

judgment of this Court dated 20.07.2011 in W.P.No.14014 of 2009

in the case of G.Menaka vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Chennai

and others. The relevant portions in the said judgment are

extracted hereunder:

20. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent School referred to the judgment of the Division Bench in The Secretary, Kumaran Middle School, Ramanathapuram District v. V.Panchavarnam and others in W.A.(MD)No.169 of 2007 dated 05.09.2007 (CDJ 2007 MHC 5153) for contending that the Division Bench had stated that discretion has been conferred on the Management to grant extension or not. But the passage quoted by the counsel is tone out of context. In paragraphs 13 and 14, it was observed as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

"13. According to Condition No.1, the character and the conduct of the teacher should be satisfactory for granting extension on re-employment basis beyond the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The said condition no doubt incorporates in itself a discretion, of course, a guided discretion conferred on the Management to grant extension or not to grant extension on the basis of the character and conduct of the teacher concerned. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge memo was issued against the writ petitioner on 05.04.2005 and pending enquiry, he was also placed under suspension with effect from 25.04.2005. At the conclusion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that four, out of five charges, stood proved. It is also not in dispute that based on the said enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner. But, ultimately, as the writ petitioner was due to retire on superannuation shortly, the Management thought it fit to drop all further proceedings and allow him to retire on superannuation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

14. The fact that the petitioner was not awarded any punishment and the disciplinary proceedings were closed will not be enough to hold that the character and conduct of the writ petitioner was without any blur or blemish. The very fact that he had to face a disciplinary enquiry in which the charges leveled against him were found to be proved, is a valid ground to take his conduit and character not satisfactory for the purpose of granting extension on re- employment basis. Therefore, the refusal on the part of the Management to extend the service of the writ petitioner on re-

employment basis beyond the age of superannuation, according to the considered view of this Court, is justifiable."

But in the present case, there was no disciplinary action taken against the petitioner and the reasons which are now adduced were stated for the first time and it was also not reflected in the order denying her right of re- employment.

7.Paragraph No.14 of the judgment of the Division Bench that

was referred to by the learned Judge (CDJ 2007 MHC 5153) would

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

certainly clarify the position that the petitioner's request cannot be

considered. Even in the present case, the petitioner was under

suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings and he

was not allowed to retire on the day of retirement.

8.Considering the directions of this Court in the earlier writ

petition and that charges against the petitioner were dropped and

he was allowed to retire only subsequently, the petitioner was

suspended from service in contemplation of disciplinary

proceedings. That is one good ground to reject the application of the

petitioner for re-employment. Re-employment of petitioner will be

considered only if the petitioner is fit and his conduct and character

are good to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. It is not

necessary that the charges against him were to be proved before

rejecting his request for re-employment.

9.In the present case, dropping of charges will have no

consequences. Even the Division Bench has rejected a similar

representation of the petitioner therein. The petitioner has not even

produced before this Court his application seeking for re-

employment. He is greedy to seek salary for a period during which

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

he was not employed or had not discharged his duties as a teacher

to get the benefit.

10.This Court has no reason to interfere with the impugned

order. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of

merits. Since the entitlement to the other benefits as per the

petitioner's representation were not considered, the issue whether

the petitioner is entitled to other benefits is not an issue in the writ

petition. Hence, the petitioner can pursue his representation

regarding the other benefits. No Costs.

28.06.2021 Index:Yes Internet:Yes Speaking order ssr

To

1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

3.The Chief Educational Officer, Chief Educational Office, Dharmapuri District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.12915 of 2021

S.S.SUNDAR. J., ssr

W.P. No.12915 of 2021

28.06.2021

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