Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3310
High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others
Versus
M. Jesci Gnanam
Review Application No. 125 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 7531 of 2009 & Cont. Petition No. 1010 of 2013
Decided on: 18-09-2013
D. Krishnakumar, Spl. G.P., P. Ganesan for M/s. C.S. Associates, Advocates.
Competence of the Government and the Director of School Education to impose penalties and take disciplinary action against an employee who has not reached the age of superannuation.
Headnote:
Competent Authority - Disciplinary Action - Summary: The court discussed the competence of the Government and the Director of School Education to impose penalties and take disciplinary action against the respondent. It held that the Government was not the competent authority to impose the penalty of dismissal as the respondent was still in service and had not reached the age of superannuation. The Director of School Education was directed to pass final orders within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The review petition was filed against the order dated 25.09.2012 in W.P.No.13052 of 2012. The court found no merit in the review petition and discussed the competence of the Government and the Director of School Education to impose penalties and take disciplinary action against the respondent. The court directed the Director of School Education to pass final orders within three months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the review petition and discussed the competence of the Government and the Director of School Education to impose penalties and take disciplinary action against the respondent. It held that the Government was not the competent authority to impose the penalty of dismissal as the respondent was still in service and had not reached the age of superannuation. The Director of School Education was directed to pass final orders within three months.
Issues: Competence of the Government and the Director of School Education to impose penalties and take disciplinary action against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Government was not the competent authority to impose the penalty of dismissal as the respondent was still in service and had not reached the age of superannuation. The Director of School Education was directed to pass final orders within three months.
Final Decision: The review petition stands dismissed. The Director of School Education is directed to pass final orders within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the Director of School Education shall either restore the petitioner to duty or keep her under suspension till such time. The contempt petition is closed.
1. This review petition is filed against the order dated 25.09.2012 made in W.P.No.13052 of 2012.
2. I do not find any merit in the review petition. However, the learned Special Government Pleader has placed heavy reliance on Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules and submitted that the Director of School Education is the competent authority to take action against the respondent/writ petitioner since the respondent/writ petitioner- Junior Assistant and the Headmaster were jointly involved in the irregularities.
3. Therefore, even according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the Government is not the competent authority to impose the penalty of dismissal.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the Headmaster attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and he was permitted to retire from service and departmental action was continued under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 by the Government. Hence, the Government is the competent authority to pass order in the case of the respondent/petitioner also. I am not able to agree with the said submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader.
5. In the case of petitioner, if she retires from service and it is decided to continue disciplinary action under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the Government can very well proceed under the Pension Rules. But in the case of the petitioner, she is still in service and she has not reached the age of superannuation. Proceedings were initiated by the Director of School Education by issuing charge sheet. But the Government has passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner, while it has no authority to do the same. In view of dismissal order passed against the petitioner, she has lost her valuable right of appeal.
6. For all the foregoing reasons, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that in view of the dismissal of the review petition, three months' time as given in the writ petition vide order dated 25.09.2012 may be given to pass final orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the request made by the learned Special Government Pleader.
7. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. The Director of School Education is directed to pass final orders within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that the Director of School Education shall either restore the petitioner to duty or to keep her under suspension till such time.
8. In view of the order passed in the Review Petition, the contempt petition is closed.
