Madras High Court
M.Malaiyarasan vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 8 August, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
and MP(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
M.Malaiyarasan
Headmaster (Retd)
Government Higher Secondary School
Allinagaram
Theni District ...Appellant
/Vs./
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort ST.George, Chennai 600 009
2.The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Frazer Bridge Road
Chennai 600 003
3.The Director of School Education
College Road
Chennai 600 006
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
4.The Chief Educational Officer
Theni, Theni District
5.The Enquiry Officer /Joint Director
of Higher Secondary School
School of Education Department
Chennai ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to
set aside the order dated 04.08.2015 made in WP(MD).No.13817 of 2015
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Appadurai
For R1, R3 to R5 : Mr.V.Om.Prakash
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.J.Anand Kumar
Standing Counsel
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)
The writ petitioner is the appellant.
2.The writ petitioner was working as a Headmaster of
Government Higher Secondary School, Kadamalaikundu, Theni District
and he was about to retire on 30.09.2011. He made a request on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
21.08.2012 to extend his services till the end of the academic year up to
31.05.2013. Therefore, the petitioner was transferred from
Kadamalaikundu to Allinagaram, Theni District and a charge memo was
served on the writ petitioner on 26.09.2012. The three charges that were
levelled against the writ petitioner are as follows:
(1)The writ petitioner was alleged to have
collected Rs.50/- from each one of the 449 students totalling
Rs.22,450/- for issuing transfer certificate to the students
from VI Standard to X Standard during the academic year
2010-2011.
(2)The petitioner was alleged to have collected
Rs.200/- from each of the 220 students totalling Rs.44,000/-
as computer fee from the students from XI Standard to XII
Standard during the academic year 2011-2012 without
issuing proper receipt and misappropriated the same.
(3)The petitioner was alleged to have collected Rs.
300/- from each one of the 232 students totalling Rs.69,600/-
towards donation from students of XI and XII Standards
during the academic year 2011-2012 without issuing
property receipt and misappropriated the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
3.The petitioner had filed WP(MD).No.12972 of 2012
challenging the denial of re-employment. The petitioner had also filed a
writ petition challenging the charge memo. The petitioner had submitted
his explanation and not being satisfied with the said explanation, an
enquiry was ordered.
4.The defence of the petitioner was not accepted and he was
found guilty on all the three charges. The petitioner had submitted his
explanation to the enquiry report on 30.05.2014. The Government sought
his consent for the proposed punishment of deduction of Rs.1000/- per
month from his monthly pension by proceedings dated 13.10.2014. The
petitioner had submitted his reply on 07.11.2014 objecting to the
proposed punishment.
5.The first respondent sought approval from TNPSC by
proceedings dated 25.05.2015. The TNPSC had expressed their consent
for confirming the proposed punishment. Based upon the said letter, the
Government had passed G.O.(1D).No.223, School Education (PaKa1(2)
Department, dated 01.07.2015 imposing a punishment of deduction of
Rs.1000/- per month from the pension of the writ petitioner for a period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
of two years. The Government order and the other preceding orders were
challenged in WP(MD).No.13817 of 2015.
6.The Writ Court after hearing the submissions on either side,
found that the writ petitioner, had collected donations from the students
studying in a Government School and therefore, the punishment imposed
upon the writ petitioner for a period of two years does not warrant
interference and dismissed the writ petition. Challenging the same, the
present writ appeal has been filed.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant had contended that the
petitioner had never collected any amount from the students for issuance
of transfer certificate. He had further contended that the computer fee
collected from the students is evidenced through the School documents
and therefore, the allegation of misappropriation is not factually correct.
He had further contended that even for collection of Rs.200/- from XI
Standard students, proper receipts are available in the School and no
amount was collected from XII Standard students. Since he was
transferred abruptly, he could not produce the said records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
8.The learned counsel had further contended that the writ Court
has not properly appreciated the explanation offered by the writ
petitioner to each one of the charges and has simply dismissed the writ
petition relying upon the enquiry report that the petitioner has collected
donation. In fact, the petitioner has not collected any donation and the
amounts that were collected have been properly deposited to the School
account which could be evidenced from the records available in the
School. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of the writ Court and
the order impugned in the writ petition and to disburse the retirement and
other service benefits.
9.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondents had contended that the petitioner has nowhere refuted the
allegation of collection of money from the students. He had only
contended that those amounts have been properly evidenced by the
School records and he has not misappropriated the same. He had further
contended that none of the amount has been credited to the Government
Treasury. As per the contention of the writ petitioner, the amounts have
been credited to the bank account of the Parent Teachers Association
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
which is contrary to the Rules of Parent Teachers Association and also
Government Employees Conduct Rules.
10. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions
made on either side and perused the material records.
11.In Paragraph Nos.6 to 8 of the writ affidavit, while
answering the charges levelled against him, the writ petitioner has
categorically admitted that he had collected funds from the students
relating to all the three charges. As far as the first charge is concerned,
the defence of the writ petitioner is that the funds were collected through
Parent Teachers Association and they were utilized for development of
the School. As far as the second charge is concerned, it is the case of the
writ petitioner that they have been deposited into the bank account under
various receipts. As far as the third charge is concerned, his contention is
that he had deposited the amount into School development funds and
thereafter paid into the treasury.
12.A perusal of the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner
to the charge memo dated 25.09.2012 indicates that the petitioner had
denied collecting any funds for issuance of transfer certificate in relation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
to the first charge. As far as the charges 2 and 3 are concerned, the
petitioner had contended that the funds collected are reflected in the
School document and he has not misappropriated the same. The
petitioner had annexed a treasury challan dated 11.12.2012 which
indicates that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1,13,600/- on the
said date which is after issuance of charge memo. That apart, in the writ
affidavit, the petitioner had admitted that he had collected funds for
issuance of transfer certificate through Parent Teachers Association.
Though the petitioner has contended that the amounts collected were
deposited into the bank account, no records have been placed either
before the Enquiry Officer or before this Court to substantiate the same.
13.The learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon the
proceedings of the Chief Educational Officer, dated 13.08.2003 to
contend that the School was permitted to collect Rs.100/- as special fee
from XI and XII Standard students towards computer education. As far as
the third charge relating to computer education is concerned, the
petitioner has admitted while submitting his explanation to the proposed
punishment that he had collected at the rate of Rs.200/- from XI Standard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
students. Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner had collected more
than what has been authorized by the educational authority.
14.The learned counsel for the appellant had further relied
upon Rule 15 of the Parent Teachers Association to contend that the
Parent Teachers Association is entitled to receive donations. We are not
in agreement with the said submission, in view of the fact that the
amounts that have been collected by the writ petitioner are not by way of
voluntary donations, but compulsorily collected from all the concerned
students.
15.The writ Court was right in arriving at a finding that the
petitioner is guilty of collecting donations from the students under the
garb of Parent Teachers Association. Even assuming that the petitioner is
authorized to collect the said amount, the entire amount should have been
credited to the Government account but instead the fund has been
credited to the account of Parent Teachers Association Bank account.
Viewed from any angle, we do not find any reason to interfere in the
order passed by the Writ Court in confirming the punishment imposed
upon the writ petitioner. The Writ Appeal lacks merits and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
08.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
msa
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort ST.George, Chennai 600 009
2.The Director of School Education
College Road
Chennai 600 006
3.The Chief Educational Officer
Theni, Theni District
4.The Enquiry Officer /Joint Director
of Higher Secondary School
School of Education Department
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Judgement made in
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
and MP(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
Dated:
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.1133 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
