Madras High Court
Sowpackiavathy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 April, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A(MD)No.1465 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 03.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A.(MD)No.1465 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11841 of 2019
Sowpackiavathy ... Appellant / writ petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus,
Chennai-6
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
RMS Road,
Madurai.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai East Union,
Pattu Poochi School,
Madurai.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:17:52 pm )
W.A(MD)No.1465 of 2019
5.The Head Mistress
Panchayat Union Middle School,
Naickanpatti,
Madurai East Union,
Madurai-107.
6.Subramanian
The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
RMS Road,
Madurai.
7.Josephine Ruby
The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai East Union,
Pattu Poochi School,
Madurai.
8.Rasathi
The Head Mistress,
Panchayat Union Middle School,
Naickanpatti,
Madurai East Union,
Madurai-107. ...Respondents/ Respondents
Prayer: This Writ Appeal is filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to
set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.2511 of 2014 dated 22.07.2019
on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondent : Mr.V.Omprakash – for R1 to R5
Government Advocate
Left – for R6
No Appearance - for R7
No such person – for R8
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:17:52 pm )
W.A(MD)No.1465 of 2019
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
The writ appeal is preferred against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the appellant seeking
to challenge the charge memo, dated 05.02.2014.
2. The appellant herein joined as BT Assistant (English) in
Panchayat Union Middle School Kulavaipatti, Annavasal Union,
Pudukottai District on 15.09.2010. She was transferred to Middle
School, Naickanpatty on 01.08.2012. On 18.12.2013 when District
Elementary Educational Officer conducted surprise inspection, he found
that the students of the appellant were very poor in English and not able
to even answer very basic questions put in English. Hence, charge memo
was issued to her to show cause why action should not be taken against
her. Challenging the same, she filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.2511
of 2014. This Court after hearing the State and perusing the records,
found that from the assessment report of the Educational Authority
concerned, it is clear that the writ petitioner has failed to teach the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:17:52 pm )
students, the English language properly and it is a classic case where the
teachers have committed negligence and dereliction of duty. After
framing array of directions to improve the education standard, the writ
petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the present writ appeal is filed.
However, when the matter is taken up for consideration, there is no
representation.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 5 states that the appellant herein after receipt of the
charge memo filing the writ petition in the year 2014 had failed to turn
up to duty since 13.07.2015 she is absent unauthorisedly and therefore,
she was placed under suspension and in spite of several notice, till date
she has not subjected herself for the Departmental proceedings. Since in
view of the pendency of the writ appeal, further action could not be taken
by the Department.
4. Taking note of the fact that the appellant without
participating in the Departmental proceedings had rushed to this Court,
but failed. Even thereafter, there is a serious misconduct of unauthorised
absence. However, due to the pendency of the writ appeal, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:17:52 pm )
Department is unable to proceed against her for her grave misconduct.
There cannot be a judicial interference when there is a prima facie
material available to frame charge and proceed in accordance with the
Service Rules. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition. The learned
Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition which need to be
confirmed.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The
official respondents are directed to take necessary action immediately
against the appellant in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.J, J.] [R.P., J.]
03.04.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:17:52 pm )
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Elementary Education,
DPI Campus,
Chennai-6
3.The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai District,
RMS Road,
Madurai.
4.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Madurai East Union,
Pattu Poochi School,
Madurai.
5.The Head Mistress
Panchayat Union Middle School,
Naickanpatti,
Madurai East Union,
Madurai-107.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:17:52 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
RM
Judgment made in
03.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/04/2025 04:17:52 pm )
