Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, C. SARAVANAN, JJ.
M. Priya - Appellant
Versus
The Registrar General, The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Chennai & Others - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 21566 & 20649 of 2018
Decided On : 21-10-2019
Constitution of India1950 - Article 226 - Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016 - Section 36 - Rule 17 (b) Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules - Temporary employment is appointment - Punishment - Petitioner she hails from a Most Backward Community and with immense difficulty she passed petitioner registered her name in District employment exchange and on basis of her employment exchange seniority she was appointed as Office Assistant by proceedings of second respondent Subsequently by another order she was posted as Office Assistant in Family Court Salem- thereafter petitioner was transferred to Sub Court Salem Additional District Court Salem and finally she was posted at District Court - According petitioner she was discharging her duties sincerely and honestly with utmost dedication and satisfaction of her superiors- It is her case that at time of joining duty as Office Assistant in Sub Court she had four months child to be looked after- Further between due her ill-health she was compelled to take leave on medical grounds- Petitioner also submitted leave letter indicating her ill-health however Subordinate Judge refused to receive same- therefore petitioner was constrained to send leave letter by Registered Post- It also contention -Held, Petitioner second respondent invoking powers conferred Explanation Section refused to extend period of probation of petitioner any further and discharged her from service- second respondent being appointing authority is not satisfied with performance of petitioner and had chosen to refuse to declare probation and discharge him from service therefore we hold that order of discharge passed by second respondent is a discharge and it is not attached with any stigma is no necessity for second respondent to frame specific charges against petitioner and to conduct an elaborate enquiry to prove those charges- order of discharge cannot be construed as one passed by second respondent as a measure of punishment - Petitioner would vehemently contend that even assuming that order of discharge is without attached with any stigma and it termination yet Court has to see surrounding circumstances under which it was passed as well as basis and foundation of order complained of- In this context learned counsel relied on earlier writ petitions filed by petitioner and orders passed thereof to contend that petitioner was whimsically targeted by respondents with an intention to terminate her from service at every stage- Court are unable to accede to such submissions made on behalf of petitioner- Even in earlier orders passed by this Court merits or otherwise of contentions raised by petitioner has not been gone into but this Court only directed respondents to follow procedures prescribed- In order Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to respondents to follow procedures prescribed by law and to proceed further- Accordingly by following procedures prescribed Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conditions second respondent extended probation of petitioner for a period of six months and passed order of termination without referring to any misconduct on part of petitioner - Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Prayer: WP No. 21566 of 2018:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned memo, passed by the second respondent vide ROC No.2703/A/2018 dated 13.08.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service, by declaring her probation, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
WP No. 20649 of 2018:- Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned memo, passed by the first respondent vide D.No.5427 dated 19.07.2018 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to declare the probation of the petitioner as Office Assistant in the second respondent as satisfactory and successful with all consequential benefits.
1. The petitioner has filed WP No. 20649 of 2018 challenging the notice dated 19.07.2018 issued by the first respondent - Principal District Judge, Salem, under Section 31 (1) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 expressing his intention to discharge the petitioner from service inasmuch as her performance of duties are not satisfactory. When WP No. 20649 of 2018 was pending before this Court, the petitioner was discharged from service from the cadre of Office Assistant by an order dated 13.08.2018 of the Principal District Judge, Salem. Challenging the order dated 13.08.2018, the petitioner has filed the second Writ Petition being WP No. 21566 of 2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these writ petitions can be referred to as per their litigative status in WP No. 21566 of 2018.
3. The facts leading to filing of these two writ petitions are succinctly narrated hereunder.
4. According to the petitioner, she hails from a Most Backward Community and with immense difficulty, she passed S.S.L.C. The petitioner registered her name in the District employment exchange and on the basis of her employment exchange seniority, she was appointed as Office Assistant by proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.04.2014. Subsequently, by another order dated 21.04.2014, she was posted as Office Assistant in the Family Court, Salem. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Sub Court, Salem, III Additional District Court, Salem and finally, she was posted at District Munsif Court, Sankakiri. According to the petitioner, she was discharging her duties sincerely and honestly with utmost dedication and satisfaction of her superiors. It is her case that at the time of joining duty as Office Assistant in the Sub Court, Attur, she had four months child to be looked after. Further, between 20.06.2014 and 22.06.2014 and from 27.06.2014 to 02.07.2014, due to her ill-health, she was compelled to take leave on medical grounds. The petitioner also submitted leave letter indicating her ill-health, however, the Subordinate Judge, Attur refused to receive the same. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to send the leave letter by Registered Post. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Subordinate Judge, Attur, for the reasons unknown to her, frequently issued memos to her alleging dereliction in discharge of duties. Further, the III Additional District Judge, Salem, at the behest of the Subordinate Judge, Attur, sent a report dated 05.11.2014 to the second respondent about the leave obtained by the petitioner periodically. Subsequently, the Subordinate Judge, Attur also sent a report dated 09.02.2015 to the second respondent purportedly alleging that the petitioner failed to obey the instructions given to her. It is on the basis of the aforesaid report dated 05.11.2014 of the III Additional District Judge, Salem and the report of the Subordinate Judge, Attur, dated 09.02.2015, the second respondent issued the notice dated 25.02.2015 calling
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
