Madras High Court
The Government Of Tamilnadu vs S.Mary Pushpa Latha on 20 March, 2023
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
1.The Government of TamilNadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to the Government School,
(School Education Department),
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Elementary School Education,
Director of Elementary Education,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Senkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Mary Pushpa Latha
2.Mariappan,
District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli. ...Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this
Court to set aside the order dated 28.03.2013 made in W.P.(MD)No.2616 of
2010 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 of 2010 and 1 of 2011 on the file of this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Om.Prakash
Government Advocate
For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Radhakrishnan
For 2nd Respondent : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order passed by
the Writ Court dated 28.03.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.2616 of 2010.
2. The first respondent was a teacher at the appellant department,
against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memo
dated 19.01.2009 was issued, followed by Show Cause Notice dated
17.02.2010. Challenging these proceedings, the Writ Petition was filed. The
learned Judge, who heard the Writ Petition had taken note of the fact that
the first respondent's husband also was facing the similar charge of
completing full time B.Ed., course without taking proper permission or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
leave from the authorities concerned and against whom also such
disciplinary proceedings were initiated, challenging the same, the husband
of the first respondent filed a Writ Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.32 of 2010,
which was considered and ordered by the Writ Court, where, since some of
the charges framed against the husband of the 1st respondent since were
proved proportionate punishment can be awarded against him, for which,
the punishment of removal of service imposed against him was set aside and
the matter was remitted back to the authorities concerned to conduct an
enquiry and accordingly to award suitable punishment but not the major
punishment of removal of service.
3. Only in that circumstances, taking note of the earlier order
passed in respect of the 1st respondent's husband, the learned Judge has dealt
with this matter also as verbatim the same or similar charges had been
framed against the 1st respondent and that charges as well as the show cause
notice issued in this regard since were under challenge, the learned Judge
decided to allow the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent exactly on the
same terms, where the earlier Writ Petition filed by the husband of the 1st
respondent on the similar set of charges under similar circumstances was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
allowed was taken into account and accordingly, the said Writ Petition was
ordered, as against which only now the present intra-Court appeal has been
directed at the instance of the appellant department.
4. Heard Mr.OM Prakash, learned Government Advocate,
appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent.
5. It is not in dispute that insofar as the 1st respondent and her
husband are concerned, both were facing the similar set of charges under
similar circumstances and the disciplinary proceedings made against the
husband is concerned that was dealt with by the learned Judge in the said
Writ Petition and what order passed in the said Writ Petition having been
accepted by the department, enquiry was completed, based on which a lesser
punishment of withholding increments for three years with cumulative
effect that has been imposed.
6. When that being so, the 1st respondent / writ petitioner, who is
also similarly placed under similar circumstances, facing the same set of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
charges cannot be treated differently. Therefore, the reasoning given by the
learned Judge for allowing the Writ Petition through the impugned order
dated 28.03.2013 is justifiable and in this regard we do not find any error in
the disposal of the said Writ Petition through the impugned order.
7. In this context, the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the appellants would submit that if that being the view of the Court, this
matter can also be remitted back to the appellant authorities based on such
remand an enquiry to be conducted in this regard on the charges framed
against the 1st respondent and punishment commensurate with the proven
charges would be given to her and to that extent a remand order can be
passed, he contended.
8. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. In view of the aforestated reasons and the order already passed
by the Writ Court in W.P.(MD) No. 32 of 2010 in respect of the case of the
husband of the 1st respondent and same having been accepted was acted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
upon by the authorities concerned, who are the appellants herein and in the
same lines since this Writ Petition has also been allowed by the learned
Judge through the impugned order, we do not find any error in the said
order passed by this Court, which is impugned herein.
10. In the result, this Writ Appeal fails, hence it is dismissed.
However, we make it clear that, the charges framed against the first
respondent shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the appellant
department, where if ultimately the charges are proved, the similar
punishment as that of the one imposed against the 1st respondent's husband
can very well be imposed against the 1st respondent also. However, there
shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) & (K.K.R.K, J.)
20.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
SJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
To
1.The Secretary to the Government School,
(School Education Department),
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of Elementary School Education,
Director of Elementary Education,
D.P.I. Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Senkottai,
Tirunelveli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
SJ
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.899 of 2013
20.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
