HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DAVID LEO.S – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent
WP(MD) 2019/2022
['M/S LAJAPATHI ROY T', '', 'Rajasekar S', 'REJOINDER AFFIDAVIT', 'ADDL T/S', 'M/S HENRI TIPHAGNE', '', 'KARUNANIDHI R', 'SPL GP', 'INDEX BOOKLETR']
W.P.(MD) No.2019 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order
Date of Pronouncing the Order
04.04.2022
27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.(MD) No.2019 of 2022
and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.1735, 1737 & 2793 of 2022
S.David Leo
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to the Government
School Education Department
Fort St.George, Chennai-9
2.The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Compound
College Road, Chennai-600 006
3.The Chief Educational Officer
O/o.the Chief Educational Officer
Pudukkottai District
4.The District Educational Officer
O/o.the District Educational Officer
Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District
5.The Block Educational Officer
Thiruvarankulam Block
Pudukkottai District
6.A.Karuppian
Middle School Headmaster
Panchayat Union Middle School
Panangulam North
Thiruvarankulam Block
Pudukkottai District
7.The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Collectors Nagar, Alandur
Chennai-600 016
... Respondents
[R7 is suo motu impleaded vide
Court order dated 02.03.2022]
1/14
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.P.(MD) No.2019 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.342/A3/2022, dated
25.01.2022 on the file of the Respondent No.4 and the consequential
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.53/A2/2022 dated 25.01.2022 on the file
of the Respondent No.5 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner
:
Mr.Lajapathi Roy.T.
For Respondents :
Mr.R.Baskar, Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Vairam Santhosh
Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R5
Mr.Henri Tiphange for R6
Mr.A.K.Manikkam
Special Government Pleader for R7
O R D E R
The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the order
of transfer issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent vide
proceedings dated 25.01.2022 and the consequential order issued on
the same day by the fifth respondent.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the post of Secondary
Grade Teacher on 17.03.1986 and was promoted to the post of Primary
School Headmaster on 05.06.2002 and further promoted to the post of
Middle School Headmaster on 02.06.2008 and presently working as
Headmaster in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Alangudi,
Thiruvarankulam Block, Pudukkottai District.
3. The petitioner states that to his shock and surprise,
the fourth respondent has issued the impugned order of transfer
dated 25.01.2022, which amounts to punishment. Though the
petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds, the nature of
complaint or allegation made against the petitioner has not been
explained in the impugned order. The petitioner further states that
the Parent-Teacher Association submitted a written complaint against
one Rajendran and Sujatha stating that they are misbehaving in the
school campus and an enquiry was conducted by the erstwhile Block
Educational Officer. The petitioner found that the complaint is
true and preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Block
Educational Officer, however, no action was initiated against the
said teachers.
4. The petitioner further states that when he acted based
on the complaint of the Parent-Teacher Association, he has been
penalized by way of the impugned transfer order. According to the
petitioner, the sixth respondent, who is working as Middle School
Headmaster in Panchayat Union Middle School, Panangulam North,
Thiruvarankulam Block, Pudukkottai District, has involved in several
irregularities, including sexual harassment.
In order to
accommodate the sixth respondent in the place of the petitioner as
2/14
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.P.(MD) No.2019 of 2022
there was a protest against the sixth respondent by the village
people