G. Padmanabhan v. The District Elementary Educational Officer,Villupuram & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 29-1-2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARW.P.No.303 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2006G. Padmanabhan...PetitionerVs.1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,Villupuram.2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,Koliyanoor,Villupuram District....RespondentsPrayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 ofConstitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings ofthe first respondent dated 1.11.2007 made in Na.Ka.No.240/A3/2007,and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.R.SaravanakumarFor Respondents:Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy,Government Advocate(Education)O R D E RPrayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the firstrespondent dated 1.11.2007 imposing punishment of withholding of oneincrement with cumulative effect.2.The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed asSecondary Grade Teacher in the Panchayat Union Middle School,Muthampalayam, by the Commissioner, Koliyanoor Panchayat Union, byorder dated 21.2.1976. Petitioner was transferred to various placesand he was promoted as Headmaster in the Panchayat Union ElementarySchool, Anangkooran Kuchipalayam, Villupuram District, and he is nowworking as Headmaster of the Panchayat Union Elementary School,Thathampalayam. According to the petitioner, he has got unblemishedrecord of service and while he was serving in AnangkooranKuchipalayam Panchayat Union Elementary School, there was only three https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ students in the school and due to his efforts, the strength of theschool was increased to 35. The mid-day meal scheme was notavailable in the school and the said scheme was also implemented inthe school at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner furtherstates that for maintaining discipline in the school, he imposedcertain conditions and occasionally he used to make personal visitto each class and ask questions relating to the subject, that wasbeing taught. One student by name Kanimozhi did not answer aquestion and therefore petitioner scolded the said student.According to the petitioner, due to the same, the villagers ofAnangkooran Kuchipalayam made a representation to the secondrespondent to take action against the petitioner, based on whichpetitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 25.1.2007 bythe first respondent. Charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil NaduCivil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were framed againstthe petitioner, which reads as follows:"1.The petitioner misbehaved with oneKanimozhi, who is studying 5th standard in theschool.2.The petitioner was absented himself on3.1.2007 without prior intimation.3.The petitioner corrected entries as ifhe was present in the school, when actually notpresent himself on that day."3. The petitioner submitted his explanation for the saidcharges on 9.2.2007. According to the petitioner, villagers, oncoming to know about the petitioner's suspension, submitted arepresentation on 7.2.2007 to the first respondent and prayed forrevocation of suspension. Petitioner was issued with aquestionaire, which was also filled up by the petitioner in April,2007. On 28.9.2007, the suspension order was revoked and thepetitioner was transferred to the Panchayat Union Middle School asHeadmaster in Panchayat Union Middle School, Melpathi, KoliyanoorPanchayat, with a direction to extend his co-operation for thedisciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondents. On 3.11.2007petitioner was transferred to Panchayat Union Elementary School,Thathampalayam as Headmaster and now he is working in the saidSchool. The grievance of the petitioner is that without conductingany enquiry with regard to the above three charges, the firstrespondent passed an order of punishment by order dated 1.11.2007,withholding one increment with cumulative effect.4.Since a specific stand was taken in this writ petitionstating that without conducting enquiry petitioner was punished,when the writ petition was posted for admission on 5.1.2008, theGovernment Advocate was directed to take notice and to produce the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ file and the Government Advocate also produced the file on21.1.2008. I have perused the file containing 174 pages.5.Before placing the petitioner under suspension, theAssistant Elementary Educational Officer, Koliaynoor made a surpriseinspection on 3.1.2007 and conducted preliminary enquiry with regardto the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is stated inthe said preliminary enquiry report of the Assistant ElementaryEducational Officer that the complaints were received from thevillagers, human rights activists, the vice Chairman of the VillagePanchayat, Womens self-help group President, the Sweeper of theschool, Noon-meal Organiser, the School Teacher, the 5th standardstudent Kanimozhi, her mother and certain villagers. It is furtherstated in the prliminary enquiry report that the villagers statedthat the petitioner misbehaved with the 5th standard studentKanimozhi and the petitioner shall not be permitted to work in thesaid school and if he is permitted to work in the said school, thevillagers may not send their children to the school. Based on thesame, a prima facie decision was arrived by the first respondent on5.1.2007. The statement of the victim girl, namely Kanimozhi findsa place in the file stating the actual act of misbehaviour. Themother of the victim girl also has given statement on 3.1.2007,apart from the statement given by others as stated supra. Based onthe preliminary enquiry report, the charge memo was framed underrule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules, by the proceedings of the first respondent with regard to theabove referred three charges.6.The preliminary enquiry report dated 5.1.2007 was servedalong with other documents. After the order of suspension,petitioner submitted a representation dated 7.2.2007 to revoke theorder of suspension and also expressed his willingness to betransferred to Anangkooran, Kuchipalayam Panchayat Union ElementarySchool. Enquiry was conducted against the charges on 26.4.2007,wherein the petitioner denied the charges and he was satisfied withthe procedure adopted during the enquiry and signed in the enquiryproceedings expressing his satisfaction. The Director of ElementaryEducation through his proceeding dated 22.8.2007 ordered to paysubsistence allowance to the petitioner and also to complete thedisciplinary proceeding within one week. On 13.9.2007, also thevictim girl gave a statement. Victim's mother gave a statementreiterating the earlier statement given during the preliminaryenquiry. Villagers namely C.Selvaraj, N.Kamala also gave statementsreiterating the statement given during the preliminary enquiry andthe teacher named R.Mahalakshmi also gave statement reiterating thesame. The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Koliyanoor wasalso present during the time of enquiry. Subsistence allowancepayable to the petitioner was also paid. An enquiry report wasdrawn by the first respondent. The suspension order was revoked on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21.9.2007 and the petitioner was directed to co-operate with theenquiry and he was transferred to Panchayat Union Middle School,Melpathy, Koliyanoor Union. In the enquiry, finding was given thatcharges levelled against the petitioner are proved, pursuant towhich the impugned punishment was ordered.7.From the above narrated facts, based on the file producedby the respondents, I am satisfied that the petitioner was givensufficient opportunity and the statements were obtained from thevictim girl as well as other persons, not only during thepreliminary enquiry but also during final enquiry. Hence thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no enquirywas conducted before passing the impugned order cannot be sustained.First charge levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature.However very lenient view was taken and increment was withheld forone year with cumulative effect and the same cannot be treated asirrational or arbitrary.8.The scope of interference with regard to the power ofpunishment by the disciplinary authority is well settled. TheSupreme Court in the decision reported in (2007) 7 SCC 257 (Union ofIndia v. S.S.Ahluwalia), in paragraph 8 held as follows:"8............... The scope of judicialreview in the matter of imposition of penalty asa result of disciplinary proceedings is verylimited. The court can interfere with thepunishment only if it finds the same to beshockingly disproportionate tothe charges foundto be proved. In such a case the court is toremit the matter to the disciplinary authorityfor reconsideration of the punishment. In anappropriate case in order to avoid delay thecourt can itself impose lesserpenalty. ..........."9.Petitioner, who is Headmaster of the school is also ateacher. The role of a Teacher in the society is explained by theSupreme Court in the decision reported in (1997) 2 SCC 534 (AvinashNagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti). In paragraph 12, the SupremeCourt observed thus,"12........ His/her character and conductshould be more like Rishi and as loco parentisand such is the duty, responsibility and chargeexpected of a teacher. The question ariseswhether the conduct of the appellant isbefitting with such higher responsibilities andas he by his conduct betrayed the trust and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ forfeited the faith whether he would be entitledto the full-fledged enquiry as demanded by him?The fallen standard of the appellant is the tipof the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, anoble and learned profession; it is for eachteacher and collectively their body to stem therot to sustain the faith of the society reposedin them. Enquiry is not a panacea but a nail inthe coffin. ...." 10.From the above referred judgment it is abundantly clearthat conducting regular enquiry is not mandatory in a case of thisnature. However, in this case, not only the preliminary enquiry,but also final regular enquiry was also conducted as could be seenfrom the file. Therefore, there is no procedural infirmity asalleged by the petitioner.11.In the above circumstances, I find no reason to interferewith the impugned order and the same is dismissed. No costs.Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarvr/TrTo1.The District Elementary Educational Officer,Villupuram.2.The Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,Koliyanoor, Villupuram District.+1cc to Mr.R.Saravanakumar, Advocate Sr 3901BV (CO)km/4.2.W.P.No.303 of 2008 & connected MP.