IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T. RAJA Writ Petition No.4526 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Gananathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Elementary School Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai – 06 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Villupuram Villupuram District 3.The Additional Elementary Educational Officer Magaioor Union Manapoondi, Villupuram ... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.H.Rajesh for Mr.T.Arockia Dass For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner-K.Gananathan has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Ref.No.Na.Ka.7320/A3/2010, dated 05.01.2011 on the file of the second respondent, to quash the same and further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner along with all his back wages. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, while serving as an Elementary School Teacher in Panchayat Middle School, Nayanur, Mugaioor, Villupuram District, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after completing his Bachelor of Teaching (B.T.) education, he joined as an elementary school teacher in the year 1999. Subsequently, he got transfer from Vadakaraai Thazhanur Government School to the present school. As a secondary grade teacher, when he was handling classes for VI, VII and VIII standard particularly for Tamil, Mathematics, Science and Social Science subjects. He was also put in-charge of VI standard. Due to mismanagement done by the School Headmistress, the petitioner said to have questioned the Headmistress, who seems to have given a false complaint against the petitioner which ultimately led to issuance of a memo against the petitioner. After issuance of the memo dated 09.01.2011, calling upon the petitioner to explain the three charges issued under Rule 17 (a) of Civil Servant Conduct Rules, the petitioner after receipt of the said memo, submitted his explanation on 25.01.2011. The second respondent also passed an order of suspension by charging the petitioner under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that the present order passed by the second respondent, by placing the petitioner under suspension by exercising power under 17(e) of the Rules is contrary to the provisions of law. 3. The further submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no power vested with the second respondent to place the petitioner under suspension. For the above mentioned reasons, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent viz., the District Elementary Educational Officer, Villupuram, stating that various allegations have been made against the petitioner including an allegation that the petitioner used to come to the school after consuming liquor, sleeping in the class room while on duty, signing the attendance register without properly attending the school and changing class rooms frequently and thereby causing mental agony to the poor children studying in the Government School etc. Only based on the above said allegations, the charge memo was issued to the petitioner. Instead of answering to the said notice, the counter further states that he threatened the respondents by abusive language. Therefore, when the petitioner was issued with a charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Civil Servant Conduct Rules, the petitioner immediately after receipt of the said charge memo, very badly reacted for the said charge memo which ultimately resulted in passing the suspension order under 17(e) of the Rule. It was further submitted that in any event since the petitioner is facing enquiry, if he is directed to face the enquiry, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner or respondents. 5. At request of the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, this Court perused the relevant File https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ produced by him. The proceedings recorded by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer indicate that when the petitioner was asked to appear before the said Officer for enquiry, he refused to appear before the said Authority and informed him to hold the enquiry in the presence of the District Collector and before an authority less than the District Collector, he will not appear. In view of the letter written by the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, I am of the view that the petitioner should face the enquiry. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar smn To 1.The Director of Elementary School Education DPI Campus, College Road Chennai – 06 2.The District Elementary Educational Officer Villupuram Villupuram District 3.The Additional Elementary Educational Officer Magaioor Union Manapoondi, Villupuram 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.39048 1 cc to Mr.T.Arockia Dass, Advocate, Sr.No.38625 W.P.No.4526 of 2011 RJ {CO} TP/19.7.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/