BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. (MD) No. 22950 of 2021 and W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 19431 and 19433 of 2021 M.Shanmuga Gomathi ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of School Education, Office of the Commissioner of School Education, DPI Complex, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Chief Educational Officer, Office of the the Chief Educational Office, Tenkasi District.

3. The District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Office, Tenkasi District. 4. The Secretary, Meenakshi Sundaram Memorial Higher Secondary School, Idaikal, Kadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District.

5. S.Rajasekar, Secretary, Meenakshi Sundaram Memorial Higher Secondary School, Idaikal, Dadayanallur Taluk, Tenkasi District. 6. S.Arumugam, Enquiry Officer, Chief Educational Officer (Retired), 199/L, Pennagaram Road, Dharmapuri - 636 701. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records proceedings in Letter No.62/2021 dated 18.10.2021 and the consequential impugned order passed by the sixth respondent in his proceedings Nil dated 25.11.2021 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to conduct an enquiry in respect of the charge memo dated 21.06.2018 by appointing a neutral person.

For Petitioner : M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Spl .Govt. Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.S.Mani for R4 to R6

O R D E R

The order of appointing an Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry and the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer to commence the enquiry proceedings are under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher on

13.02.2006 at Meenakshi Sundaram Higher Secondary School, Tenkasi and working as such. The petitioner states that when she claimed promotion to the post of B.T.Assistant, the dispute arose between the School Management and the petitioner, that resulted in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, the charge memo was issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent School Management on 21.06.2018. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 09.07.2018 and the Enquiry Officer issued a notice for commencement of enquiry on 24.07.2018.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated that though the sixth respondent / Enquiry Officer is a retired Chief Educational Officer, is acting with malafide intention. Hence, the petitioner raises a doubt with reference to the appointment of Enquiry Officer by the fourth respondent. It is contended that the sixth respondent may not act fairly and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that, he raised a malafide intention against the sixth respondent / Enquiry Officer.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent / School Management objected the said contentions by stating that the sixth respondent is a retired Chief Educational Officer and he is no way connected with the School Management. He being an experienced officer in the Education Department, the Management has appointed him to conduct a domestic enquiry. Further, the malafide ground raised by the petitioner has not been substantiated and therefore, the Writ Petition is to be rejected.

5. This Court is of the considered opinion that the malafide intention has been raised by the petitioner, by merely stating that "the petitioner has expressed the malafide intention of the Management". However, there are no specific allegations which all are required to satisfy the requirement of malafide intention and mere statement in this regard is insufficient. The ground of malafide intention is to be established with specific allegations and such allegations are to be substantiated. Routinely, raising such allegation of malafide is impermissible and the Court cannot rely on such statement made by the petitioner, who is a Del