Madras High Court
A. Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 February, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
W.P.No.4623 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.4623 of 2025
WMP.No.5124 of 2025
A. Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by the Secretary to the Government
Elementary Education,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The District Education Officer (Elementary)
Kallakurichi District,
Kallakurichi.
4. The Block Educational Officer,
Thirunavallur,
Kallakurichi District.
5. The Panchayat Union Middle School
Rep.by its Headmaster,
Porasakurichi Village,
Thiyagadurgam Panchayat Union,
Kalakurichi Taluk and District. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 5
W.P.No.4623 of 2025
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to 4th
respondent in Na.Ka.No.2191/Aa1/2006 dated 28.04.2014 and the third
respondent vide its order dated Na.No.1116/Aa3/2015, dated 04.09.2019 and
quash the same as non-application of mind, illegal and contrary to law and
consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioner suspension period
from 12.01.2007 to 09.02.2010 as regular service time with full salary and
benefits within a time frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar
For Respondent : Mr.Karthik Jaganathan
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus to call for the records relating to 4th respondent in
Na.Ka.No.2191/Aa1/2006 dated 28.04.2014 and the third respondent vide
order dated Na.No.1116/Aa3/2015, dated 04.09.2019 and quash the same as
passed with non-application of mind and as being illegal and contrary to law
and consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioner's suspension
period from 12.01.2007 to 09.02.2010 as regular service time with full salary
and benefits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been
contended that the petitioner had been appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher
on 28.10.2004 at Porasakurichi Panchayat Union Middle School within
Thyagadurgam Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District. It
had been stated that on 05.02.2007, the petitioner had been issued with a charge
memo alleging misconduct and theft of computer from the said school. The
misconduct was that he had abused children studying in the school. It had been
contended that subsequently the parents had given a letter that no such
complaint had been given by them and therefore that particular charge had been
dropped but however the charge of theft of computer was maintained and a
criminal case was also initiated and registered with respect to the same.
3. It is contended that the petitioner was however acquitted of all charges
in C.C.No.37 of 2008 in which trial was conducted by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Kallakurichi. Judgment of acquittal was passed on 22.04.2009.
4. But however, the departmental proceedings proceeded and the charge
was found proved and punishment of censure had been passed against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner herein. The petitioner now claims that the period of suspension
should be treated as duty period and that he should be paid all the benefits. This
claim was made on the basis of the petitioner being acquitted in the criminal
case. But however, it is also to be noted that in the departmental proceedings,
the charge had been held to be proved and punishment of censure had been
passed. Once the punishment had been passed unless the appellate authority
sets aside that particular punishment, then it has to be taken that the charge
stood proved in entirety. There can be consideration only with respect to the
nature of punishment to be imposed. The period during which the petitioner
was suspended therefore cannot be treated as period of duty. It has to be treated
period of leave without any pay.
5. I am afraid that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by
this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
12.02.2025
dpq
Index : Yes /No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
dpq
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
