High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11-9-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.Nos.6095 of 2006 and 11622 of 2007 (T)andWPMP No.182 of 2007 in WP No.6095 of 2006M.Krishnappa.. Petitioner in both petitions vs1.The District Elementary EducationalOfficer Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District2.The Assistant Elementary EducationalOfficer Kelamangalam, Krishnagiri District3.The Accountant General (A & E) Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 018... Respondents in WP 6095/20064.The Assistant Elementary EducationalOfficer Kelamangalam, Dharmapuri District.. Respondent in WP 11622/2007(T)W.P.No.6095/2006 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay allthe retirement benefits due to the petitioner with interest for thebelated payment from the date of his retirement namely 31.7.2004 till thedate of payment.W.P.No.11622/2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the recordsof the respondent in Na.Ka.No.816/A1/2001 dated 10.9.2001 and quash thesame and to direct the respondent to grant all the consequential benefitsto the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.P.RajendranFor Respondents: Mr.A.Vijayakumar Government Advocate for RR1 and 2 in WP 6095/2006 and the respondent in WP 11622/2007 Mr.V.L.Vijayshankar for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern the above two writ petitions.2.WP No.6095/2006 has been filed, whereby the petitioner seeks a writof mandamus directing the respondents to pay all the retirement benefitsdue to the petitioner with interest for the belated payment from the dateof the retirement namely 31.7.2004 till the date of payment, while WPNo.11622/2007 has been taken on file by this Court pursuant to thetransfer of O.A.No.1471 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, whereby the petitioner had challenged thepunishment imposed on him.3.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. The affidavitsin support of the petitions are perused. 4.Concededly, the petitioner was working as Head Master in thePanchayat Union Elementary School, Zeebi, Kelamangalam, DharmapuriDistrict. While he was working so, there was an inspection by theAssistant Elementary Educational Officer, Kelamangalam, on 31.7.2001. Atthat time, the inspection report book was not available. In view of thenon-availability of the said book, the second respondent, the AssistantElementary Educational Officer, could not record any remarks therein. Amemo was served upon the petitioner alleging that he was responsible forthe non-availability of the book, and it was purposefully done. He gave areply stating that the report book was taken by the Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer, and hence, the remarks could not be made, and he wasnot responsible for the same. Following the enquiry, there was apunishment awarded namely stoppage of increment for one year, which hechallenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by way ofO.A.No.1471 of 2002. While that matter was pending before the Tribunal,on his application before the Tribunal in O.A.No.466/2003, he wasreinstated in service on 1.12.2003, and he was working there as HeadMaster. Then, on attaining superannuation, he retired from service on31.7.2004. According to the petitioner, from that time onwards, thoughmany a representation was made, the pensionary benefits were not given tohim, and under the circumstances, he has brought forth WP No.6095/2006.The application which was pending before the Tamil Nadu AdministrativeTribunal in O.A.No.1471/2002, was transferred to this Court and was alsotaken on file as WP No.11622 of 2007. Thus, these two writ petitions havearisen before this Court.5.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the writ petitioner, thelearned Counsel would submit that as far as the charges levelled againsthim, which ended in the awarding of punishment of one year stoppage ofincrement, was concerned, even the reading of the impugned order wouldclearly indicate that there was no finding recorded in that regard; but,the authority, who was not satisfied with the explanation, directlyawarded the punishment; that though there was a punishment for stoppage ofincrement for one year, it does not say whether it is cumulative or not;that further, not even he was put on notice; that even the reading of theorder would clearly indicate that it was nothing but a result ofindication by the authority, and hence, it was to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Added further the learned Counsel that pursuant to the order of theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, he was actually reinstated on1.12.2003; that he retired on 31.7.2004 on attaining superannuation; thatunder the circumstances, he was entitled to have all the pensionarybenefits, but not given, without any reason or justification whatsoever,and hence, a direction has got to be given by issuance of a writ ofmandamus.7.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on the abovecontentions.8.After careful consideration of the submissions made, this Court isof the considered opinion that the writ petitions have got to be ordered.It is not in controversy that the petitioner herein was working asHeadmaster in the Elementary School referred to above, and there was aninspection by the higher Officer. The only allegation made against thepetitioner, was that at that time, the inspection report book was notavailable. When a charge memo was served upon him, he gave a replystating that it was actually taken by the higher Officer for making theremarks; but, it was not returned to him. Following the enquiry, he wasfound guilty. From the very order under challenge, it is quite clear thatthe reply that was given by the petitioner that the report book was takenby the higher-ups earlier, has led the Officer to become prejudiced andpass such an order under challenge. As rightly pointed out by the learnedCounsel for the petitioner, the authority who passed the order, did notrecord a finding that the charges were proved against him. But, what areall found in the order, is only the contents of the charge and the reply,and there is not even a reason to arrive at such a conclusion. It can bewell stated that neither a reason is found, nor a finding is noticed, andon that ground, the order of the respondent in WP No.11622/2007 has got tobe quashed without any hesitation. Accordingly, it is quashed.9.As far as WP No.6095/2006 wherein he seeks a writ of mandamusdirecting the respondents to give the pensionary benefits, is concerned,pending the O.A.No.1471/2002, he was actually reinstated in service from1.12.2003. He also retired on 31.7.2004 on attaining superannuation.Once the Officer has been allowed to retire, there is no question of anyimpediment for giving the pensionary benefits and that too, in the instantcase, where he was a Headmaster of a School. Even if the pendency of theO.A. challenging the order of stoppage of one year increment was thereason, now it is set aside. The Court can also make it clear that thereis no reason for the respondents to cause further delay in making thepayment of the pensionary benefits. The pensionary benefits must be givento the petitioner within a period of two months herefrom. Though thepetitioner has asked for interest, no interest is ordered. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10.In the result, WP No.6095/2006 is, accordingly, disposed of. WPNo.11622/2007 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP isclosed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/To:1.The District Elementary EducationalOfficer Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District2.The Assistant Elementary EducationalOfficer Kelamangalam, Krishnagiri District3.The Accountant General (A & E) Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 018.1 CC To Mr.V.Vijayshankar, Advocate, SR NO.56589.1 CC To Mr.P.Rajendran, Advocate, SR NO.56755.WP Nos.6095 of 2006 and11622 of 2007KM(CO)RVL 17.09.2007