1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.4031 of 2011 Mrs.J.Gnana Pushpam : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Correspondent, Appavu Primary School, Arulachi, Aathuvazhi Post, Vasudevanallur Range, Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District-627 760. : Respondents Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the third respondent dated 24.3.2011 dismissing the petitioner from service, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefits and attendance benefit. For Petitioner : Mrs.J.Gnana Pushpam (Party-in-Person) For Respondents-1&2 : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent-3 : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon her. 2. Heard the petitioner appearing in person, Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned counsel for the third respondent. 3. The petitioner was employed in the third respondent-School from 25.4.1990 as a Secondary Grade Teacher. It appears that her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 husband was the Headmaster of the School. After her husband retired from service on 31.5.2010, the petitioner staked a claim for the post of Headmistress and also filed a writ petition on the file of this Court. 4. In the meantime, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.12.2010 on certain allegations. It was followed by a charge memo dated 19.1.2011, to which the petitioner submitted an explanation on 21.1.2011. A domestic enquiry followed in which the petitioner did not participate. Ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. On the basis of the said report, the third respondent passed the order dated 24.3.2011, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. 5. Though it is seen from the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner herself has been guilty of not cooperating in the conduct of the enquiry and seeking irrelevant documents, the fact remains that the Enquiry Officer did not record a finding of guilty or not guilty as against everyone of the charges framed against the petitioner. The charge memo dated 19.1.2011 issued to the petitioner shows that 5 charges were framed against the petitioner. The charge memo also discloses that certain documents were relied upon, by the management in support of each of those charges. Therefore, in the normal circumstances, an Enquiry Officer is supposed to record his findings in respect of each of the charges, after considering the documents filed in support of the charges, even if the delinquent was not present in the enquiry. The absence of the delinquent in the enquiry would not absolve the Enquiry Officer from recording a finding in respect of each of the charges. 6. The mistake committed by the Enquiry Officer had its effect even upon the order of dismissal from service. Even in the impugned order, the third respondent did not record findings against each charge. 7. Therefore, despite finding fault with the petitioner for not cooperating in the enquiry, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground. The petitioner, who appeared as a party-in-person, submitted that she will certainly appear before the Enquiry Officer on any date fixed by this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 25.11.2011. The management shall produce their witnesses and the documents relied upon by them on that date. On that date, the petitioner shall cross-examine the witnesses on the side of the management and she may also produce her own evidence on that date. Thereafter, the third respondent may obtain the report of the Enquiry Officer, furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit a reply to the enquiry report and pass a final order on the proceedings, after taking into account (i) the gravity of the charges and (ii) any extenuating circumstances depending upon her past service. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli. 2.The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Vasudevanallur, Tirunelveli District. +1 CC to Mrs.Gnanapushpam, Advocate (SR.No.39233) +1 CC to Mr.C.Mayil vahana Rajendran, Advocate (SR.No.39315) +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.39288) W.P.(MD)No.4031 of 2011 11.11.2011 Svn NSV/14.11.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/