1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.884 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Subhadra ...Appellant Vs. 1.The Joint Director of Vocational Education (Vocational Higher Secondary) College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil 629 002. 3.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Arumanai, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 07.09.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.10125 of 2011. WP(MD)No.10125 of 2011 prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari, calling for the records to the order passd by the 2nd respondent in his procedings R.C.No.5223/A3/2011 dated 30.08.2011 and quash the same. For Appellant : Mr.S.Meenakashi Sundaram For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahendran, Spl.G.P. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) On the face of it, the Writ Appeal is misconceived. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (MD)No.10125 of 2011 dated 07.09.2011, in and by which, the appellant has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 30.08.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.It is seen that the suspension order has been passed under Rule 17(1) (e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, Rule 17(1)(e) is not relating to any serious acts. 3.On the other hand, the impugned suspension order shows that the appellant has involved in various activities, which are as follows: "(i)Inducing and compelling children to sign in letter hand written by other students, (ii)Using cell phones in classes and school hours (iii)Threatening children of lower standards with the help of higher class students (iv)sending 3 girl students to another school without getting permission from the Headmistress, etc.," 4.Even if a wrong provision has been quoted, it does not mean that there is no power on the part of the 2nd respondent in placing the appellant under suspension. Mere non pendency of a criminal case does not mean that the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension. We are perfectly in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The Joint Director of Vocational Education (Vocational Higher Secondary)College Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai 600 006. 2.The Chief Educational Officer,Kanyakumari District,Nagercoil 629 002. 3.The District Educational Officer, Kuzhithurai Educational District, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Arumanai, Kanyakumari District. +1 CC to M/s S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate, SR.No.31280 nbj W.A.(MD)No.884 of 2011 13.09.2011 TR : 10.10.2011 : 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/