High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
R. Lalitha Bai
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Education Department & Others
W.P.No.10582 of 2008
Decided On :Decided on : 23-12-2011
Tampering of Records - Disciplinary Action - Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu CCA Rules - The court set aside the charge memo and subsequent orders of punishment of censure against the petitioner, as the authorities failed to afford a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to make representation before imposing the penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Post Graduate Teacher, challenged the charge memo issued by the Chief Educational Officer and subsequent orders of punishment of censure. The petitioner alleged tampering of records and requested suitable action against the responsible individuals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities failed to afford a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to make representation before imposing the penalty of censure, as required by Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu CCA Rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged tampering of records, disciplinary action, and the failure of the authorities to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(a) before imposing the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authorities' failure to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(a) before imposing the penalty rendered the orders of punishment of censure unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the charge memo and subsequent orders of punishment of censure against the petitioner, without ordering a remand.
1. Heard Mr.G.Muthukrishanan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Ms.J.Anandavalli, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.
2. Challenging the charge memo issued by the Chief Educational Officer, 4th respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8526/A2/2006 dated 07.12.2006; subsequent proceedings of the Joint Director, the 3rd respondent herein vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.045113/W3/E3/2007 dated 02.11.2007; subsequent and consequential order passed by the Joint Director, the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.045113/W3/E3/07 dated 31.12.2007 and the final order passed by the Director of School Education, the 2nd respondent herein vide his proceedings Na.Ka.No.04113/W3/E3/07, dated 06.03.2008 and seeking to quash the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Facts of the case as put forth by the petitioner would run thus:
3.1. The petitioner is a Post Graduate Teacher. She passed M.Ed. in 1988 and M.Phil. in April 1990 and was selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board and appointed as Post Graduate Teacher in Tamil by the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education. She filed Contempt Application No.274 of 2007 in which notice was ordered to the respondent and after that, the respondent herein complied with the order passed by this court in W.P.No.18326 of 2006. Even though the said order was passed by the respondent on 05.04.2007, the entire arrears of bill was paid in October 2007 only.
3.2. According to the petitioner, she has rendered more than 20 years of dedicated service and that the Department could not pinpoint any omission during her entire service. But, the situation at Government Higher Secondary School, Nattalam, where now she is working is a bitter one. The Headmistress, Mrs.R.Evelin Pramila and one of her close relatives N.Subanandaraj, a P.G. Teacher gave troubles to the petitioner by misuse of official powers taking advantage of the animosity the Department has against her.
3.3. While so, on 22.06.2006, the petitioner attended the school and signed the Master Register kept in the school for registering the attendance of Teachers and she signed the same in the forenoon as well as in the afternoon. As per the practice prevailing in the Higher Secondary School, the Teacher attending the school has to sign in the Register both in the forenoon and afternoon. There is a register called Work Done Register, wherein each and every Teacher who conducts classes will have to put their initial. The petitioner would submit that she had put her initial in the Work Done Register on 22.06.2006 afternoon for having taken classes according to the Time Table on 22.06.2006 and that the Register clearly shows that she was in the School throughout the day on 22.06.2006 till the end of school time. She did not have supervision duty after regular school hours on 22.06.2006 as it was Thursday, whereas, she had been allotted study supervision only on Tuesday evening as per the Time Table given by the Headmistress.
3.4. On 23.06.2006, the petitioner came to School in the morning and while signing the Attendance Register, she found that her signature on 22.06.2006 afternoon was erased and it was marked in red ink as Casual Leave. Erasing and marking of Casual Leave in the Register for the afternoon of 22.06.2006 throws a doubt on her sincerity and integrity as a Teacher. Everyday, both in the morning and in the afternoon, the Master Register should be consolidated and at the bottom of the Register, the total number of teachers those who have attended the school will be shown and the total number of teachers on leave will also be shown and after that, the Headmistress will sign the same. On 22.06.2006, the total number of Teachers who have attended the School has been erased as they have already erased her signature and in order to suit the total consolidation, they have erased th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.