IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.2288 OF 2010 P.Parimala .. Petitioner Versus The Director of Elementary Education DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Respondent PRAYER : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 10.08.2009 within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Ms.E.Ranganayaki Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard both sides.
2.The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in a Panchayat Union Elementary School in the year 1999. She was dismissed from service by an order dated 21.04.2004. The dismissal was on the ground that she has produced a bogus S.S.L.C. Certificate for gaining entry in the service. A charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was framed and after conducting enquiry, she was dismissed from service. It is claimed that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said dismissal order to the first respondent on 01.07.2004.
3.The petitioner thereafter came to challenge the original order of dismissal dated 21.04.2004 in W.P.No.12286/2005. However, this Court did not entertain the writ petition and merely directed her appeal, allegedly filed on 01.07.2004, to be disposed of by the appellate authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, it is not clear that subsequent to the order passed by this Court, whether the appeal was disposed of or not.
4.The petitioner, in the meanwhile, who was tried before the Criminal Court in C.C.No.505/2009, was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate II, Tindivanam, by judgment dated 16.09.2009. The Criminal Court held that the investigation was not proper and the prosecution has failed to prove the case under Section 420 IPC and inasmuch as they have failed to prove the petitioner did not have a mensrea to commit such an offence.
5.The petitioner around the same time sent a representation dated 10.08.2009 to the first respondent, remaining that she has filed an appeal in the year 2004 and this Court had directed the disposal of her appeal that she did not get a copy of the order, and purportedly the application is filed under the Right to Information Act. A stamp for Rs.10/- is affixed in the said representation.
6.If the Public Information Officer attached to the first respondent do not dispose of such an application, the Right to Information Act provides for a further appeal to the appellate authority attached to the office of such Public Information Officer, failing which, the petitioner can file appropriate appeal before the State Information Commission. But only with a view to challenge the earlier dismissal order, on account of her subsequent acquittal, the petitioner has now revised the method of approaching this Court seeking a direction to dispose of his written representation dated 10.08.2009.
7.Since the Right to Information Act provides not only a time bound disposal, but also an appellate authority within the Department, failing which, the Information Commission can give appropriate directions in case of denial of information or delayed furnishing of information. The Right to Information Act also provides for the imposition of damages against the officer including disciplinary action, when there is a self contained poke, which is not within the province of this Court to give any direction.
8.Under this circumstance, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. No Costs.
TK
To
The Director of Elementary Education
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006