IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 18-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.27289 of 2006 (O.A.No.8037 of 1995) S.Raju .. Petitioner(Applicant) Versus 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai. 2.The Director of School Education, Madras. .. Respondents(Respondents) Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent, dated 21.11.1992, issued in the Ref.Na.Ka.No.27163/E2/90(1) and the order of the II respondent, dated 9.2.95, issued in the Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.117080 C3/93-2 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Ms.K.Dhanalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Government Advocate O R D E R This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months imposed on the petitioner for the lapses alleged to have occurred during the academic year 1980-81. 2. The petitioner had worked as an Assistant Educational Officer in the Kalikudi Panchayat Union between 1.6.1981 and 4.10.1985. By a charge memo, dated 10.10.1990, a charge had been framed against the petitioner alleging that he had not maintained teacher pupil ratio in the Kalikudi Chatram Panchayat Union Elementary School. The petitioner had submitted a reply to the charge memo, on 9.8.91. Without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, an order had been passed, on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21.11.1992, imposing on the petitioner, the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months. The petitioner had filed an appeal, dated 31.12.1992, before the second respondent. The appeal was rejected by an order, dated 9.2.1995. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had joined as an Assistant Educational Officer in the Kalikudi Panchayat Union only on 1.6.1981. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the alleged lapses, which had occurred during the academic year 1980-81. With regard to the academic year 1981-82, only the Deputy Inspector of School was vested with the power to deal with the staff strength and therefore, the petitioner cannot be liable for the same. With regard to the academic years 1983 to 1985, the petitioner had brought the matter to the notice of the District Educational Officer, as per the prevailing rules. In fact for the academic years 1983 to 1985 the student and teacher ratio has been maintained as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.250, Education, dated 29.2.1964. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged lapses and the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months imposed on the petitioner is illegal and therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that it was brought to the notice of the Department of Education that there were surplus teachers employed in the Panchayat Union School at Kalikudi for the school year 1980-81 and no action was taken to transfer the surplus teachers to the needy schools till the school year 1989- 90. Due to the reluctance of the officers responsible to rectify the defects, huge amount of Government funds were being wasted. In such circumstances, the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel), Madras, had asked the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, to take necessary action against the concerned officers, who were responsible for the lapses. In this connection, the Chief Educational Officer had called for the explanation from the concerned persons, who had served as Assistant Educational Officers in Kalikudi Chatram from the years 1980-90. The petitioner was one among the officers responsible, as he was working as an Assistant Educational Officer during the period from 1.6.1981 to 4.10.1985. Explanations were called for from the concerned Educational Officers and oral enquiries were conducted by the Chief Educational Officer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Based on the explanations given by the officers and based on the oral enquiries, the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, had come to the conclusion that disciplinary action should be taken against the concerned officers as per Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Accordingly, charges were framed against the petitioner in Rc.No.27163-D2/90(1), dated 16.7.91. The explanation submitted by the petitioner, on 9.8.91, and the oral version of the petitioner during the enquiry held on 21.12.1991, were taken into consideration. Since the charges framed against the petitioner were proved beyond doubt, a minor punishment of stoppage of increment for six months was awarded, vide Rc.No.27163-D2/90(1), dated 21.11.92, by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai. Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, the petitioner had filed an appeal petition, on 31.12.1992, to the Director of School Education, Madras. The Appellate Authority had rejected the appeal in his proceedings Rc.No.117080-C3/93-2, dated 9.2.95. Challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondents, the petitioner had filed the original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.8037 of 1995, which has been transferred and re-numbered as W.P.No.27289 of 2006 before this Court. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the impugned orders is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and therefore, the impugned orders, dated 21.11.1992, passed by the Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, and the order, dated 9.2.95, passed by the Director of School Education, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, are illegal and invalid in the eye of law. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, as well as for the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the impugned orders. The charges against the petitioner having been proved, the imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment for six months imposed on the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate in nature. Further, the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to defend his case before the punishment of stoppage of increment of six months, without cumulative effect, had been imposed on the petitioner. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had lost only a meagre amount of Rs.450/-. However, the Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had lost an amount Rs.30,672/- due to the negligence of the petitioner in performing his duties. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Csh Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai. 2.The Director of School Education, Madras. + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.30910 Writ Petition No.27289 of 2006 BV(CO) SR/1.7.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/