W.P. (MD) No. 22950 of 2021

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 relating to the impugned order pased by the

4th respondent in his 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.

1/5

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

W.P. (MD) No. 22950 of 2021

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