Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner manipulated the letter dated 28.06.2012 as if it was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Director of School Education. This Court refrains from rendering any opinion on the merits of the case since rendering…
Judgment
W.P.No.4141 of 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 13.02.2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIW.P.No.4141 of 2026 And W.M.P.No.4622 of 2026 F.Francis Charles ... Petitioner Vs.
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
The Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
The District Educational Officer (Elementary) (I/C), Pollachi, Coimbatore District. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the fourth 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4141 of 2026respondent by proceedings in RC No.617/A4/2022 dated 21.01.2026 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saravana SowmiyanFor Respondents : Mr.S.Prabakaran Government Advocate
O R D E RThe petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the fourth respondent by proceedings in RC No.617/A4/2022 dated 21.01.2026 and quash the same. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as secondary grade teacher in the year 1996 in Aided Middle School, Valparai Taluk, Coimbatore District. Subsequently, he was promoted to Middle School Headmaster on 16.08.2002. Under these circumstances, the Government took over the said school as Government School with effect from 11.03.2006 on a specific condition that the seniority of the petitioner and other teachers (from the date of initial appointment) should not be altered. Being the senior most person, the petitioner is eligible to be included in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Elementary 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4141 of 2026 Educational Officer (now restructured as Block Educational Officer) drawn on 01.01.2014.
However, the petitioner’s name was not included in the panel. Hence, he approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.13044 of 2014 and this Court by its order dated 18.05.2017 directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner’s review petition seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Elementary Educational Officer. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Elementary Educational Officer and posted at Gummidipoondi Union. However, his service was not regularized and scale of pay was not fixed and moreover, request in this regard was also rejected by the second respondent, which was also challenged before this Court in W.P.No.18034 of 2021. Under these circumstances, the fourth respondent initiated a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge memo dated 07.01.2026 alleging that the petitioner has fabricated a letter bearing No.26623/Q/2011-3 dated 28.06.2012 purported to be issued by the Deputy Secretary.
Pending enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4141 of 202621.01.2026. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 issued direction to the first respondent to produce the running file relating to letter No.26623/Q/2011-3 dated 28.06.2012, pursuant to which the respondent has produced the running file and the alleged letter is not available in the running file. Hence, this Court may issue direction to the respondents to revoke the suspension order and to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time frame.
The learned Government Advocate submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner manipulated the letter dated 28.06.2012 as if it was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Director of School Education. In view of the serious allegation, revocation of suspension is impermissible one, however, disciplinary proceedings will be concluded by providing opportunity to the petitioner, within a reasonable time frame.
Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4141 of 2026the materials available on record.
Operative part
The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner manipulated the letter dated 28.06.2012 as if it was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Director of School Education. This Court refrains from rendering any opinion on the merits of the case since rendering any opinion will affect the interest of the petitioner. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by providing opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13.02.2026priIndex: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4141 of 2026M.DHANDAPANI,J. priTo1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.2.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.3.The Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 4. The District Educational Officer (Elementary) (I/C), Pollachi, Coimbatore District.W.P.No.4141 of 2026 AndW.M.P.No.4622 of 202613.02.20266/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.