Madras High Court
M.Thiruvalluvan (Died) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 March, 2025
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.21765 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 29.01.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.21765 of 2023
and WMP(MD).Nos.18162 & 18163 of 2023
M.Thiruvalluvan (died)
2.Ambujam
3.Dhivya
4.Dhivakar ....Petitioners
(Petitioners 2 to 4 are substituted vide
Court order dated 27.11.2024)
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education
Office of the Director of School Education
DPI Compound
Chennai – 6
3.The Commissioner of School Education
Office of the Commissioner of School Education
DPI Complex
Nungambakkam
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
1/14
W.P(MD).No.21765 of 2023
4.The Joint Director (Personal)
Office of the Director of School Education
DPI Compound
Chennai – 6
5.The Chief Educational Officer
Office of the Chief Educational Office
Thanjavur District 613 001
6.The District Educational Officer
Office of the District Educational Office
Melaulur Village
Orathanadu Taluk
Thanjavur District ....Respondents
Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent vide his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.31795/A3/E2/2019 dated 03.02.2022 and consequential impugned
order passed by the third respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
17420/C4/E2/2022 dated 27.02.2023 and quash the same as illegal and
consequentially to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to retire from
service.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Mohammed Imran
For M/s.Ajmal Associates
For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed by a former P.A.to the District
Elementary Educational Officer, Orathanadu challenging the imposition of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
punishment of compulsory retirement.
(A)Facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
2.The writ petitioner herein was issued with a charge memo by the
third respondent on 20.06.2019 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. A perusal of the said charge memo
reveals that the petitioner while he was working as P.A. to the District
Elementary Educational Officer, Vorathanadu had relied upon two orders of
the Director of Elementary Education dated 07.04.2017 and 10.04.2017 and
has proceeded to grant approval to the Secondary Grade Teachers who have
not completed Child Psychology Training. Those two orders of the Director
of Elementary Education are bogus orders. The writ petitioner has not taken
care to verify the same from the Directorate and he has placed the files before
the Superintendent and in turn he had placed the same before the District
Elementary Education Officer who had cleared the files.
3.In view of the above said approval, the Government has incurred a
huge financial loss of Rs.1,23,35,085/-. In view of the above said misconduct,
the writ petitioner has violated Rule 20 of Tamil Nadu Government Servants
Conduct Rules.
4.The writ petitioner has sent a detailed explanation on 26.06.2019
contending that the District Elementary Educational Officer Mr.Renganathan
stated that he had collected the said order from the Directorate of Elementary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
Education, Chennai and after he had initialled the said order, it was sent to
the table of the Superintendent and thereafter to the Section Clerk. After
several staff have gone through the files, it was ultimately placed before the
District Elementary Educational Officer who had approved the note. In such
circumstances, the writ petitioner cannot be singled out for the alleged
misconduct. In the explanation, it was further contended that there is no
allegation that the writ petitioner has created the said document. In such
circumstances, the entire departmental proceedings are liable to be dropped.
5.Not being satisfied with the said explanation, an enquiry officer was
appointed and he had considered the explanation and gone through the oral
submissions made by the delinquent. The enquiry officer has found that when
ROC is liable to be suspected, the writ petitioner ought to have rechecked the
genuineness of those two proceedings from the Directorate of Elementary
Education. Being the ministerial head, he ought to have been more cautious
enough in placing the files before the District Elementary Educational
Officer. Had he carefully perused, it could have been found that they are
bogus orders. Due to the negligence on the part of the writ petitioner, the
State has incurred huge financial loss of more than Rs.1.23 crores. The
enquiry officer found that the writ petitioner is guilty of all charges.
6.The petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice calling
upon him to furnish his explanation. The writ petitioner has submitted his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
explanation on 01.09.2020. The fourth respondent herein after concurring
with the view of the enquiry officer, has proceeded to impose a punishment of
compulsory retirement. The writ petitioner has filed an appeal before the third
respondent. The third respondent by his proceedings dated 27.02.2023 has
confirmed the order of punishment of compulsory retirement. Challenging
these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
(B)Contentions of the learned counsels appearing on either side are
as follows:
7.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had contended
that there is no allegation that he had created the two orders dated 07.04.2017
and 10.04.2017. These two orders were brought to the office only by the
District Elementary Educational Officer Mr.Renganathan and after he had
initialled the said orders, it was routed through all the official and finally, it
came into his hands as P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer.
Thereafter, he had placed the same before DEO (Elementary Education).
Though he had raised a doubt with regard to the order, the District
Elementary Educational Officer stated that he had verified the same from the
office of the Directorate, over phone. In such circumstances, there was no
possibility or any occasion for the writ petitioner to doubt the genuineness of
those two orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
8.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had further contended that
he is not the disbursing authority or he was responsible in any manner for
disbursing those benefits. He had further submitted that he has not made any
file note to the effect that the amount may be disbursed. Therefore, he cannot
be roped in the above charges.
9.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had further contented that
these two orders were handed over by the District Elementary Educational
Officer in person and he had also initialled the same on 13.04.2017 and
thereafter, it was forwarded to the Assistant and it was placed before the
Superintendent. Only the Superintendent had recorded his opinion on
02.05.2017. The petitioner has simply placed these files before the District
Elementary Educational Officer by adding a condition that the proceedings
are subject to the outcome of the writ petitions pending before this Court. In
such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be found fault with and impose with
a major penalty of voluntary retirement.
10.The learned counsel had further contended that the petitioner had
filed WP(MD).No.16873 of 2019 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings.
The writ petition was disposed on 08.08.2019 with a direction to the
authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. When the order was
not complied with, he had filed contempt proceedings in Cont.P(MD).No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
1363 of 2021 and the same was closed by this Court on 17.02.2020 on the
ground that the final orders have already been passed on 03.02.2022.
According to him, the final orders have been passed beyond the time fixed by
this Court.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a Division
Bench judgment of our High Court reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 625 (State of
Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and
Administrative Reforms (Q) Dept, Chennai and another Vs.
T.Ranganathan) wherein, it is held that, once the Court has fixed the outer
time limit for completion of enquiry, unless the time is extended by the Court,
the departmental proceedings would lapse and the punishment cannot be
imposed.
12.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents herein had contended that the petitioner is the ministerial
head of the office. Whenever an order of Directorate is brought to the notice,
he should verify the ROC number and in case of any doubt, he should have
rechecked the same from the Directorate. He was also aware of the fact that
various writ petitions were pending before the High Court, for not granting
approval to the Secondary Grade Teachers who have not completed Child
Psychology Training. Therefore, whenever, he receives orders from the
Directorate, he should have been doubted the said order, instead he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
proceeded to place those files before the District Elementary Educational
Officer who in turn had released the salary. This has caused huge financial
loss of more than 1.25 crores.
13.The learned Additional Government Pleader had relied upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 998
(Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath) dated 23.11.2022 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Court or the Tribunal cannot re-
appreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the
penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so
disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the
Court or is found to be flawed for other reasons. In case, if the punishment
on the delinquent employee shocks the conscience of the Court, then it may
be called upon to reconsider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional
circumstances, the Court can decide to impose appropriate punishment by
itself, on offering cogent reasons. Hence, he contended that the Court cannot
re-appreciate the evidence when enquiry has been conducted properly and the
petitioner has been found guilty. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition.
14.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
(C)Discussion:
15.The petitioner while he was working as P.A. to the District
Elementary Educational Officer at Orathanadu has been issued with a charge
memo on 20.06.2019. The sum and substance of the said charge memo is that
he had relied upon two orders of the Director of District Elementary
Educational Officer dated 07.04.2017 and 10.04.2017 and has placed the files
before the DEEO, Orathanadu for disbursement of salary from the initial date
of appointment to the Secondary Grade Teachers who had not completed
Child Psychology Training. According to the department, both these two
orders are bogus orders. The petitioner being the ministerial head, ought to
have verified the ROC number and the genuineness of the letters from the
Directorate before placing the files before the DEEO.
16.The relevant portion of Paragraph No.8 of the counter is extracted
as follows:
“8.With regard to the averments made in Para 8 and 9 of
the affidavit is is submitted that the petitioner relied on a bogus
order said to have been issued by the Director of Elementary
Education. He ought to have enquired about the orders where as
he is well aware of the situation that no graduate teacher can be
appointed in the post of Secondary Grade Teachers posts and if
appointed during the period from 11.07.1995 to 19.05.1998 they
had given training in Child Psychology at their own expenses and
after completion of such training their appointments can be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
approved. In these circumstances as a ministerial head, he ought
to have been very cautious and ought to have guided the officer by
his specific remarks. The petitioner was held responsible in not
having guided the officer by his specific remarks although the file
was routed through the Superintendent. He cannot evade his
responsibilities. When he suspected the very proceedings of the
Director of Elementary Education by the number itself, it was his
duty to help up the approval by his specific remarks without
blaming on others.”
17.The counter will clearly show that the primary allegation against the
petitioner is that, he was aware of the legal position and as a ministerial head,
he has not been very cautious enough and he has not guided the officer by his
specific remarks.
18.A perusal of the explanation offered by the writ petitioner to the
charge memo and his explanation to the enquiry report will clearly reveal that
these two bogus orders have been brought to the office only by the District
Elementary Educational Officer namely Mr.Renganathan. He had initialled
those documents on 13.04.2017 and thereafter, these two documents have
been placed before the other staff members for making file notes. The
Superintendent had recorded his opinion and finally, it has reached the hands
of the writ petitioner as P.A. to the District Elementary Educational Officer
to place it before DEEO for passing final orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
19.Except the fact that the files were routed through P.A. to the District
Elementary Educational Officer, there is no allegation whatsoever as against
the writ petitioner that he had made any file note or recorded his opinion in
the said files relying upon the bogus orders. When DEEO himself has brought
the orders to the office and initialled the same, there is no occasion
whatsoever for the writ petitioner to recheck or verify the genuineness of
these orders. The concerned District Elementary Educational Officer who had
initialled these two bogus orders, is also facing disciplinary proceedings. In
such circumstances, it is clear that there is no documentary or oral evidence
to establish the connection of the writ petitioner with that of the delinquency
except he had placed the files before DEEO who had already initialled these
documents certifying them to be genuineness documents.
20.The only allegation as against the writ petitioner is that he should
have verified about the genuineness of the documents from the Directorate.
When DEEO himself had certified those documents to be genuine documents
by making initial on the said documents, as a P.A to the District Elementary
Educational Officer, the writ petitioner may not have any occasion to doubt
for veracity of those documents. Therefore, it is clear that the finding of the
delinquency is clearly based on surmises and conjectures and not based upon
the concrete materials.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
21.When there is no evidence whatsoever, the finding arrived at by the
authorities could only be considered to be a perverse finding. In such
circumstances, this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of
Constitution of India to interfere in the order of punishment.
22.In view of the above said deliberations, the original authority as
well as the appellate authority have not properly considered the allegations
and the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner and they have proceeded
to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the orders
impugned in the writ petitions are liable to be set side. Accordingly, they are
set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to
release the terminal benefits of the writ petitioner within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.03.2025.
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
School Education Department
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director of School Education
Office of the Director of School Education
DPI Compound
Chennai – 6
3.The Commissioner of School Education
Office of the Commissioner of School Education
DPI Complex
Nungambakkam
Chennai
4.The Joint Director (Personal)
Office of the Director of School Education
DPI Compound
Chennai – 6
5.The Chief Educational Officer
Office of the Chief Educational Office
Thanjavur District 613 001
6.The District Educational Officer
Office of the District Educational Office
Melaulur Village
Orathanadu Taluk
Thanjavur District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
and WMP(MD).Nos.18162 &
18163 of 2023
19.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/03/2025 04:57:44 pm )
