IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.06.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.18494 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.7156 of 1995) P.Ranganathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Secretary to Govt., Education, Science and Technology Deptt. Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Madras 9 2.Joint Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Deptt. Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Madras 9 3.District Educational Officer Pollachi, Coimbatore District ... Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the Order No.Na.Ka.No.21091/A 2/83 dt.16-10-1991 passed by the District Educational Officer, Pollachi and that of the Joint Secretary to Govt., Education, Science and Technology Department, Govt,. of Tamil Nadu pertaining to the order in Lr.No.26083/S2/94-2 dt 18-5-95, as forwarded by the Director of Elementary Education, Madras-6 in Rc.No.44807/ED 2/95 dt.30-8-95 and quash the same and direct the respondents to treat the applicant as if he was on duty and direct the Department to award all the necessary benefits, both monetary and otherwise; and also direct the respondents to treat the applicant as Retired in the normal course and to award the applicant Pension and other benefits available to retired persons, and further direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.33,945/- being the arrears of Subsistence allowance due to the applicant till 16-10-91. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.G.Muthukrishnan For Respondents : Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakantan Government Advocate O R D E R Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he was working as Higher Grade Teacher in Sundara Goundanur Panchayat Union Elementary School. He had been appointed in the year 1962. He obtained selection grade in the year 1972 and Special Grade in the year 1982, after having served for the specified period. While so, a criminal case had been foisted against the petitioner by his relatives in connection with certain disputes that had arisen amongst his family members. Criminal Cases in C.C.No.373/1983, C.C.No.337/1983 and C.C.No.106/1984 had been filed against the petitioner under the various provisions of Indian Penal Code. 3. In C.C.No.373/1983 the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under Section 447 I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for three months. Challenging the sentence passed against him the petitioner had filed an appeal in C.A.No.4/1984 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet. The Assistant Sessions Court had confirmed the fine of Rs.100/- under Section 447 I.P.C. However, it had set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner under Section 354 I.P.C., and confirmed the imposition of fine of Rs.300/- under Section 354 I.P.C., and had also confirmed the fine of Rs.100/- imposed on the petitioner under Section 355 I.P.C. As against the said sentence the petitioner had filed Crl.R.C.No.63/1984 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The sentence imposed under section 447 I.P.C. was set aside and the sentence of fine under sections 354 and 355 I.P.C. were confirmed. As such the petitioner had paid a fine of Rs.400/-. The Crl.M.P.No.5986/1985 filed before the High Court had been dismissed. 4. Regarding the second case in C.C.No.337/1983 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Udumalpet, the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- under section 341 I.P.C. and Rs.200/- under section 323 I.P.C. As against the said sentence the petitioner had filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.5/1984 on the file of the Assistant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sessions Judge, Udumalpet and the same had been dismissed. A Criminal Revision Case in Crl.R.C.No.64/1984 filed by the petitioner on the file of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore had been dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a Crl.M.P.in Crl.M.P.No.6323/1985 before the High Court. The said Crl.M.P. had been dismissed by the High Court. Therefore, the petitioner had paid a total fine of Rs.300/-. 5. In C.C.No.106/1984 the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks under Section 341 I.P.C. and for two months under Section 506 I.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.16/1985 filed by the petitioner on the file of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore, had been allowed on 7.3.1985. In such circumstances, the District Educational Officer, Pollachi had issued a notice to the petitioner on 18.9.1991 by his Proc.Na.Ka.No.21091-Aa 2/83 stating that a decision had been taken to remove the petitioner from service and calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner had sent a reply on 9.10.81 requesting the District Educational Officer to grant him two months' time to submit his explanation. However, without granting the time sought for by the petitioner, the District Educational Officer at Pollachi had passed the order of dismissal on 16.10.1991 by his Proc.Na.Ka.No.21091-Aa 2/83. 6. Challenging the said order, dated 16.10.1991, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Secretary to Government, Education Department. By order, dated 30.8.1995, the appellate authority had confirmed the order passed by the District Educational Officer, Pollachi, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without giving proper reasons for rejecting the appeal by stating that there was no need to consider the representation of the petitioner since he would have retired on 31.7.1994, in the normal course. It is submitted by the petitioner that the order passed by the appellate authority in Rc.No.44807/ED 2/95, dated 30.8.95, is not a speaking order and it has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case. Further, no reasons had been given in the said order except stating that the petitioner would have retired from service on his superannuation, on 31.7.1994. 7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents had not refuted the said averments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In such circumstances, the order in Rc.No.44807/ED 2/95, dated 30.8.95, passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner, is set aside directing the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner, dated 5.12.1991, on merits and in accordance with law and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the appeal, dated 5.12.1991, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar sal To 1.Secretary to Govt., Education, Science and Technology Deptt. Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Madras 9 2.Joint Secretary to Government, Education, Science and Technology Deptt. Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Madras 9 3.District Educational Officer Pollachi, Coimbatore District 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.29184 +1 cc To Mr.G.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, SR.28793 W.P.No.18494 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.7156 of 1995) gb [co] gkg/16.6 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/