Madras High Court
C.R.Rajakumar vs The Principal Secretary on 8 October, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
2025:MHC:2331
W.P.(MD) No.7988 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.7988 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.6101 of 2023
C.R.Rajakumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Principal Secretary
to Government
School Education Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai-9
2.The Joint Director of School
Education (Personnel)
College Road, Chennai-6
3.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
rep.by its Deputy Secretary
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Nagar
Park Town, Chennai-600 003 ... Respondents
_______________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
W.P.(MD) No.7988 of 2021
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue
a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order
passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.(ID) No.55, School Education (PaKa1(2))
Department, dated 19.03.2021 and to quash the same as illegal and
consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service
with all attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2
Mr.J.Anandkumar
Standing Counsel for 3rd Respondent
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
dated 19.03.2021, passed by the first respondent.
2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant in the Education
Department of the Government, he is said to have committed misconduct by
preparing a false note to the higher officials, which resulted in erroneous
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
approvals being granted for two appointments (one for teaching staff and
another one for non-teaching staff). Charges were framed against the
petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents. Charge
No.1 pertains to the appointment of a teaching staff and Charge No.2 pertains
to the appointment of a non-teaching staff. The petitioner was also placed
under suspension. Subsequently, his suspension was revoked pursuant to
the orders passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated
22.09.2000, in O.A.No.1206 of 2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted at
the Government High School, Keelakulathur, Perambalur District. However,
the respondents, for reasons best known to them, did not proceed with the
earlier charge memo dated 03.02.2000, but instead, they chose to issue a
fresh charge memo to the petitioner on 30.11.2002 by splitting the earlier two
charges into eight charges. According to the petitioner, the eight charges
framed against him are vague. The charges have been framed not only against
the petitioner, but also against the District Education Officer and
Superintendent. The petitioner challenged the charge memo dated 30.11.2002
issued against him by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.7043 of 2005. The said
writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 03.03.2005 by permitting the
Government to issue a fresh charge memo. In accordance with the said
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
direction, the first respondent issued a fresh charge memo dated 03.10.2005
to the petitioner reiterating the charges contained in the earlier charge memo
dated 30.11.2002. The sum and substance of the charge memo issued to the
petitioner is that without fixing the staff strength, approvals were obtained for
one teaching and one non-teaching staff. According to the respondents, the
petitioner is responsible for all the approvals.
3. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo
on 12.07.2006 denying all the charges. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was
appointed by the respondents. According to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer
did not ask any question and did not hear his submissions, but, endorsed the
earlier enquiry conducted based on the second respondent's earlier charge
memo dated 30.11.2002, which was quashed by this Court's order dated
03.03.2005 in W.P.No.7043 of 2005. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report
to the first respondent on 14.05.2008 holding that except Charge No.6, all
other charges are held to be proved against the petitioner. Charge No.6 relates
to non-teaching staff. The petitioner, thereafter, on receipt of the show-cause
notice from the respondents, had also submitted his explanation on
13.09.2008 to the enquiry report. However, despite the same, the Disciplinary
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
Authority did not pass final order until 19.03.2021, which is impugned in this
writ petition, under which the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
4. The criminal case pending against the petitioner pertaining to
the very same cause of action, in C.C.No.132 of 2005, has also ended in
acquittal by the order of the Criminal Court dated 02.11.2012. The appeal
filed by the respondents aggrieved by the acquittal order of the Criminal Court
dated 02.11.2012 has also been dismissed. The criminal case came to a
finality by the order of the High Court in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.380 of 2017, dated
06.07.2017. Even after the criminal case attained finality as early as on
06.07.2017 itself, the respondents did not choose to pass final order in the
disciplinary proceedings. Instead, for reasons best known to them, the first
respondent has passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from
service only on 19.03.2021. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order
primarily on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the first respondent
in imposing the punishment, since the enquiry report was submitted as early
as on 14.05.2008. The case of the petitioner is that there is an inordinate
delay, which has not been explained by the first respondent for passing the
final order dated 19.03.2021, which is impugned in this writ petition. The
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
petitioner also categorically contends that he is innocent of the charges framed
against him in the disciplinary proceedings as he is not responsible for fixation
of staff strength in the school. He has also contended that he was not given
the opportunity of hearing before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, according
to him, the enquiry report is arbitrary and illegal and has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this
Court to the following authorities in support of his submission that due to the
inordinate delay in passing the final order by the first respondent, the
impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service has to be quashed:
(a) An Order dated 05.07.2022, passed in W.P.(MD)
No.21001 of 2019, in the case of V.A.Selvam vs. The
Government of Tamilnadu, Agricultural
Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary,
Department of Agriculture.
(b) An Order dated 23.02.2023, passed in W.P.No.22055
of 2018, in the case of V.Sundaram vs. The Director
of Town Panchayats and others.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
(c) A Division Bench Judgment of Madras High Court,
dated 01.02.2023, passed in W.A.(MD) No.1498 of
2022, in the case of the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Agricultural Production Commissioner & Principal
Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Chennai vs.
V.A.Selvam.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would reiterate the contents of the
counter filed by the respondents before this Court. He would submit that due
to the pendency of the criminal proceedings and other litigations, there was a
delay in passing the final order. According to him, there was no deliberate
delay on the part of the respondents in not passing the final order.
7. However, as seen from the materials available on record, the
following are the undisputed facts:
(a) The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry
Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges,
except Charge No.6, as early as on 14.05.2008.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
(b) The petitioner had also submitted an explanation to
the first respondent on 13.09.2008 disputing the
enquiry report.
(c) The impugned order imposing the punishment of
dismissing the petitioner from service was passed only
on 19.03.2021 i.e., after a lapse of nearly 13 years
from the date of submission of the enquiry report.
(d) The criminal prosecution launched against the
petitioner in C.C.No.132 of 2005 pertaining to the very
same cause of action also ended in acquittal by the
order of the Criminal Court passed on 02.11.2012.
(e) The criminal proceedings also attained finality by the
order of the High Court, dated 06.07.2017, passed in
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.380 of 2017 and the acquittal order
attained finality.
(f) Even after the criminal prosecution attained finality on
06.07.2017, the first respondent did not choose to
pass final order immediately thereafter in the
disciplinary proceedings, but, chose to pass the final
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
order only on 19.03.2021 i.e., after a lapse of nearly
four years from the date when the criminal
proceedings attained finality.
(g) No explanation has been given in the counter affidavit
filed by the respondents before this Court or in the
final order impugned in this writ petition as to why
there was an inordinate delay in passing the final
order, despite the fact that the enquiry report was
submitted by the Enquiry Officer as early as on
14.05.2008.
8. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Even in those
decisions, there was an inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary
proceedings and on that ground, the punishment order was quashed by this
Court in the Division Bench Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu, Agricultural
Production Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Department of
Agriculture, Chennai vs. V.A.Selvam, wherein, the Division Bench has held
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
that it is a settled position of law that whenever there is a delay in initiating
the disciplinary proceedings or in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, it
would be fatal and the proceedings are liable to the set aside, unless the delay
is properly explained or the same is attributable to the delinquent himself.
9. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no explanation given by
the respondents for the inordinate delay in passing the final order imposing
the punishment of dismissal from service and the delay is not attributable to
the petitioner (delinquent). Hence, in view of the inordinate delay in passing of
the impugned final order, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order passed by the first respondent has to be quashed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would also
submit that the petitioner is willing to forego the backwages from the date of
the impugned order. The said undertaking given by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is recorded. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that all eligible attendant benefits payable to the petitioner from the
date of the impugned order may be directed to be paid by the first respondent.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
11. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed
by quashing the impugned order dated 19.03.2021, passed by the first
respondent and by directing the respondents 1 & 2 to post the petitioner as an
Assistant at an appropriate place, within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents are also directed to pay the
eligible attendant benefits payable to the petitioner from the date of the
impugned order, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled
to receive backwages for the period from the date of the dismissal from service
till the date when he is posted at an appropriate place as per the directions of
this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
08.10.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
To:
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai-9.
2.The Joint Director of School
Education (Personnel),
College Road, Chennai-6.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk
and
08.10.2025
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 07:35:27 pm )
