Advocates:
['M/S SATHISH KUMAR K', '', 'JAMEEL ARASU B', '', 'AGP', '', 'COUNTER R']

W.P.(MD) No.15357 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 10.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD) No.15357 of 2021

and

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.12258 & 12259 of 2021

B.Renuga

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Chief Educational Officer,

Thirucharapalli District.

2.The District Educational Officer,

Thirucharapalli.

3.The Headmistress,

Government Girls Hr.Sec.School,

Town Hall, Trichy-2.

4.R.V.Chari

... Respondents

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to

call for the records of the 1^st respondent order made in

Na.Ka.No.4580/E2/2020 dated 10.08.2021 and quash the same.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.B.Jameel Arasu

For RR1 to 3

:

Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,

Additional Government Pleader

For R4

:

Ms.AL.Gandhimathi

O R D E R

The Charge Memo dated 10.08.2021 is under challenge in the

present writ petition.

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

Music Teacher in Vellore Government Higher Secondary School and

thereafter, was transferred to Papanasam Girls Higher Secondary

_________

Page 1 of 4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD) No.15357 of 2021

School. A charge memo was issued to the writ petitioner with

certain serious allegations stating that the petitioner is a partner

of R.S.Building Promoters, Trichy. Out of four partners in the

Building Promoters Company, the petitioner is also one of the

partners. The second charge against the petitioner is that from one

Mr.R.V.Chari, who was suffering from heart diseases, the petitioner

received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and cheated him. Therefore, the

respondents framed charges that the petitioner was functioning as a

partner in the Building Promoters and further, involved in the

allegation of cheating of Rs.30,00,000/- from one Mr.R.V.Chari.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that

the petitioner was not aware of the fact regarding her partnership

in the Building Promoters business and the promoter business is

being run by her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner

further states that the Building Promoters business has become

defunct.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader objected the said

contention by stating that even the Certificate of Registration

enclosed by the petitioner in her typed set of papers at page 2 is

self-evident that the petitioner is one of the partners out of four

partners, as her photograph signed by her is available in the

Certificate of Registration issued by the competent authority. The

respondents conducted enquiry and the petitioner participated in the

enquiry. During the enquiry, opportunity was given and the

authorities verified the documents with reference to the allegations

raised against the petitioner. At that stage, the present writ

petition is filed.

5.Question arises whether a charge memo can be questioned, when

it is admitted that the enquiry proceedings had already commenced

and as per the learned Additional Government Pleader, it is ended.

6.The factual grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be

considered by this Court, as it require adjudication of documents

and evidences, which was already done by the Enquiry Officer. The

mere innocence as claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

When the Certificate of Registration establishes that the petitioner

has signed the Partnership Deed, then the ignorance cannot be a

ground to quash the charge memo more so in respect of such

allegations or as a matter of fact, mere ignorance of fact or law,

is not a ground to quash the charge memo itself. Though the

complaint is made belatedly after eight years, the allegation is

that the petitioner is one of the partners in a Building Promoter

and therefore, the delay cannot be in suppor