##PAGE1##

W.P.No.25271 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.25271 of 2024

and W.M.P.Nos.27604 and 27606 of 2024

M.Margaret Vimali ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to the Government,

School Education Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Elementary Education,

College Road, Nungambakkam,

Chennai-600 006.

3.The Director of Teacher Education,

Research and Training,

Kamarajar Salai,

Chennai-600 006.

4.The Chief Educational Officer,

Krishnagiri,

Krishnagiri District.

5.The District Educational Officer (Primary),

Krishnagiri,

Krishnagiri District.

_________

Page 1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 05:00:40 pm )

W.P.No.25271 of 2024

6.The Block Educational Officer,

Krishnagiri,

Krishnagiri District.

7.The Manager of R.C.School,

Dharmapuri Diocese,

Dharmapuri,

Dharmapuri District.

8.The Correspondent,

R.C.Fathima Primary School,

Krishnagiri,

Krishnagiri District. ....Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the

records relating to the impugned orders passed by the sixth respondent in

Na.Ka.No.664/A3/2021 dated 21.06.2024 and another order passed by the

sixth respondent in Na.Ka.No.664/A3/2021 dated 05.08.2024 and

subsequent show cause notice issued by the eighth respondent in

Na.Ka.No.31/202 dated 08.08.2024 and quash the same and permit the

petitioner to continue in service peacefully.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kasinatha Bharathi

For Respondents : Mrs.Mythreye Chandru

Special Government Pleader

for R1 to R6

Mr.Father Savier Arul Raj

Senior Counsel for

Mr.S.M.Edward Stanley

for R7 and R8

_________

Page 2 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 05:00:40 pm )

W.P.No.25271 of 2024

O R D E R

The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order of recovery

dated 21.06.2024 and the order dated 05.08.2024 passed by the sixth

respondent and the subsequent show cause notice dated 08.08.2024 issued

by the eighth respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as

Teacher and was regularized on 02.08.2001. While she had been working in

the eighth respondent School, she was asked to submit her original

certificates on 16.08.2004, however, the same was not returned. By

communication dated 22.02.2012, the petitioner was informed that

Evaluation Certificate submitted by her was fake and direction was issued to

take criminal proceedings against her and recovery of salary for the entire

period for which she had worked. Challenging the same, the petitioner has

filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5343 of 2012 on the ground that before

issuance of recovery order, the petitioner was not issued with any show

cause notice. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court and

thereafter, the petitioner filed W.A.No.650 of 2012 which was allowed by

_________

Page 3 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/02/2026 05:00:40 pm )

W.P.No.25271 of 2024

the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court quashing the suspension order and

subsequent recovery orders passed by the respondents 3, 5 and 8 herein.

Even after the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the respondents did

not disburse the petitioner’s salary and therefore, the petitioner preferred a

contempt petition in Cont.P.No.748 of 2013. After the contempt petition, the

District Elementary Educational Officer passed the proceedings dated

27.03.2014 reinstating the petitioner and regularizing her suspension period

retrospectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the order

was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, arrears of

increment was not disbursed to her.

3. While that being so, the sixth respondent issued the proceedings

dated 21.06.2024 ordering recovery of salary once again and another

proceedings dated 05.08.2024 citing review application and audit objection

and again issued a recovery order, based on which, t