1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19/4/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)No.4491 of 2011 Mrs.O.N.Hemalatha ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Educational Officer Kuzhithurai,Kanyakumari. 2. The Corporate Manager Corporate Management of Roman Catholic Schools "THEDAL" No.10/8-46 C Bridge Ward Near Fire Station Kuzhithurai Kanyakumari District. 3. The Correspondent St. Mary's Higher Secondary School Melpalai, Kuzhithurai Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge memo in No.EDN/K/CM/F, I 108/133/2011 dated 6/4/2011 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader for R.1 O R D E R By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. Mr.V.Rajasekaran, Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned charge memo dated 6/4/2011 of the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The case of the petitioner in a nut shell is stated here under:- She was originally appointed as B.Ed Assistant Malayalam Teacher in St. Mary's Higher Secondary School, Melapalai. In the year 2009, she was appointed as High School Assistant (Social Science) Malayalam Teacher under the Corporate Management of the R.C.Diocese of Kottar and posted at third respondent Higher Secondary School. After the retirement of one C.S.Maria Arputham, she was appointed as Junior Grade Graduate (Social Science) Teacher and posted at St.Mary's Higher Secondary School, Melpalai, by proceeding of the second respondent dated 4/1/2010. 5. The first respondent in his proceeding dated 17/8/2010 has approved her appointment. Thereafter, she sent a representation dated 21/8/2010 praying for payment of salary from the date of appointment i.e., from 4/1/2010 and not from the date of approval i.e., from 17/8/2010. The first respondent, considering her request, has passed an order dated 23/9/2010, approving her appointment with effect from 4/1/2010. 6. While so, the second respondent issued an order of suspension dated 17/8/2010, alleging that she do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church. She filed a petition in W.P.No.2780 of 2011, challenging the order of suspension. This Court, directed the respondents to consider her representation which has been sent for revoking the order of suspension on merits and in accordance with law. However, no orders have been passed revoking the order of suspension. 7. In the meanwhile, the second respondent, issued the present impugned charge memo levelling three charges against her. The impugned charge memo has been issued under wrong premises that she do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner belong to the Roman Catholic Church and hence, the impugned charge memo is baseless and hence the same is not sustainable. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned charge memo suffers from statutory violation viz., Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. As per the said provision, every Teacher employed in a private school shall be governed by such code of conduct as may be prescribed. However, in the instant case, the second respondent has not framed any code of conduct and there is no whisper about the misconduct in the charge memo. Hence, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed. 9. However, I am of the considered view that when once a charge memo is issued to the petitioner, he has to respond the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 by giving an explanation for the same. If the explanation offered by the petitioner is acceptable, the authorities concerned would have to automatically drop the charges framed against the petitioner. Without doing so, the petitioner has approached this Court even at the stage of inception. Even assuming that the charges framed against the petitioner is not sustainable, the petitioner has to put forth the same before the authority concerned and not before this Court by way of a writ petition. 10. Taking such view, I am of the considered view that the impugned charge memo issued by the second respondent dated 6/4/2011 does not require any interference by this Court. 11. In fine, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to offer an explanation for the charge memo issued to the petitioner and on receipt of the same, it is open to the second respondent to consider the said explanation and take appropriate action including an action to drop the charge memo within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of offering an explanation for the charge memo by the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Educational Officer Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari. 2. The Corporate Manager Corporate Management of Roman Catholic Schools "THEDAL" No.10/8-46 C Bridge Ward Near Fire Station Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate, Sr.No.14221 W.P.(MD) No.4491 of 2011 19/4/2011 mvs SMA/29.4.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/