1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

W.P

No.965 of 2022

and WMP No.1029 of 2022

M.Sivakumar

Petitioner

.Vs.

1.The Director of School Education

D.P.I., Building

College Road

Chennai 600 009.

2.The Chief Educational Officer

Dharmapuri

Dharmapuri District.

3.The District Educational Officer

Palacode, Dharmapuri

Dharmapuri District.

4.The Block Educational Officer

Palacode, Dharmapuri

Dharmapuri District.

.. Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records in relating to the

impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3228/m 7/2018, dated 19.02.2021,passed by the

3^rd respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

For Petitioner

: Mr.D.Charles Muthu Santhan

For Respondents

: Mr.D.Ravichander

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings

of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.3228/A7/2018, dated 19.02.2021, wherein

the petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of two years increment cut

with cumulative effect.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Secondary

Grade Assistant Teacher in the year 2004. In the year 2013, he was transferred

and posted in the Panchayat Union Middle School. While working in this

School, a complaint came to be given against the petitioner before the District

Elementary Educational Officer, Dharmapuri, who has now been designated as

District Educational Officer viz., the 3rd respondent in this writ petition.

3.Based on the above complaint, the petitioner was placed under

suspension by an order dated 02.04.2018. Subsequently, a charge memo came

to be issued through proceedings dated 18.01.2018 and three charges were

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

framed against the petitioner. The charge memo was issued under Rule 17(a) of

the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules (hereinafter

referred as "the Rules").

4.The petitioner gave his explanation and apart from defending himself

on the charges framed against him, also took a stand that the father-in-law of

the petitioner misused his office and gave a false complaint with a malafide

intention.

5.An enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner gave his

explanation. To the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the impugned

proceedings dt.19.02.2021, came to be issued by imposing a major penalty of

two years increment cut with cumulative effect under Rule 17(b) of the Rules.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this

Court.

6.The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has justified the

imposition of the major penalty against the petitioner.

7.Heard Mr.D.Charles Muthu Santhan, learned counsel for the petitioner

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

8.The short issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to

whether the 3rd respondent was right in imposing a major penalty against the

petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b), even

though the initial charge memo was issued only under Rule 17(a) of the Rules.

9.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that after the charge memo

was issued against the petitioner, the petitioner gave his explanation. This

procedure was adopted on the premise that the petitioner is proceeded against

under Rule 17(a) for a minor penalty. If ultimately, a minor penalty had been

imposed, this procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent will suffice and in such

an event, this Court could have confined its focus on the reasonings given for

sustaining the minor punishment.

10.In this case, the 3rd respondent proceeded to impose a major penalty

against the petitioner under Rule 17