In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
DATED:17/10/2005
CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN
Writ Petition No.20832 of 2002
and
WPMP.No.28822/02
and
WVMP.No.1802/02
1. The Director of Elementary
Education, Chennai 6.
2. The District Elementary
Educational Officer,
Villupuram 605 602. .. Petitioners
-Vs-
1. P.N. Thiruvengadam
2. The Registrar
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 104. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.
For petitioners : Mr. E. Sampath Kumar
Government Advocate
For respondents : Mr. S. Vadivelu for R.1
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.,)
Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative
Tribunal, Chennai dated 17.08.2001, made in O.A.No.3617 of 2000, the Director
of Elementary Education, Chennai-6 and the District Elementary Educational
Officer, Villupuram, have preferred the above writ petition.
2. According to the petitioners, the first respondent herein
worked as Headmaster in the Panchayat Union Elementary School, Agoor, Mayilam
Panchayat Union. A charge memo was issued on 15.04.1999, calling upon him to
submit his explanation for marrying second and third wives, while the first
wife is alive. On 11.06.1999, the first respondent submitted his explanation.
Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered to be held by framing charges. Charge memo
was issued to the first respondent on 17.08.1999, for violation of Tamil Nadu
Government Servents’ Conduct Rules, as he married two women while the first
wife is alive. The first respondent acknowledged the receipt of the charge
memo on 06.09.1999 and requested further time for giving his explanation on
08.08.1999. He made further request to furnish copies of documents pertaining
to the charges leveled against him. On 04.10.1999, he was permitted to peruse
the documents. On 08.10.1999, he perused the documents and received copies of
the same. On 22.10.1999, orders were issued holding that the charges were
proved and he was removed from service. The first respondent filed
O.A.No.6552 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging
the said order dated 21.1 0.1999, dismissing him from service. Consequent to
the interim order, first respondent was reinstated on 18.11.1999. In the
meantime, he attained superannuation on 30.11.1999. By order dated 03.01.2000
made in O.A.No.6552 of 1999, the Tribunal, allowed his application holding
that the admission of the applicant prior to the issue of charge memo cannot
be put against him. However, the Tribunal permitted the Department to proceed
with the charge memo afresh. On 28.04.2000, charge memo was reissued for
conducting enquiry. The first respondent acknowledged the charge memo on
15.05.2000. Again, he requested further time for submitting his explanation.
He once again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.3617 of 2000. By the
impugned order dated 17.08.2001, the Tribunal set aside the charge memo dated
28.04.2000 and observed that the first respondent shall be deemed to have
retire from service on 30.11.1999, on attaining the age of superannuation.
The Tribunal, also directed that the first respondent shall be paid all the
retirement benefits within a period of three months. Questioning the same,
the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for first respondent.
4. In the light of the limited issue, it is unnecessary to
traverse all the points raised. It is not in dispute that by order dated
03.01.2000 made in O.A.No.6552 of 1999, the Tribunal, after finding that the
statement made in the letter dated 11.06.1999 is not an admission, set aside
the order of dismissal and allowed the said application. However, in the same
order, the Tribunal permitted the Department to proceed afresh, if they have
the jurisdiction and authority to do so. The said order further discloses
that even on 30.11.1999, the applicant reached the age of superannuation and
he was not in service from 30.11.1999. In spite of the said factual position,
as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the
Department issued the very same charge memo, based on the observation made by
the Tribunal in the order dated 03.01.2000. The said action was challenged by
the first respondent herein in O.A.No.3617 of 2000. By the present impugned
order, the Tribunal, after referring the earlier order of the Tribunal dated
03.01.2000, viz., that after the said order, the dismissal order become
non-existent and in the absence of any pecuniary loss to the Government,
quashed the order dated 28 .04.2000. The Tribunal has also observed that in
view of the said conclusion the applicant shall be treated as if he retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1999. In such a
circumstance, he shall be paid all retirement benefits.
5. Though in the earlier order dated 03.01.2000, the Tribunal
has permitted the Department to proceed afresh, the fact remains, the very
same charge memo was reissued, by that time the applicant attained
superannuation. In such a circumstance, as rightly pointed out, the
Department is not justified in pursuing the very same charge memo even after
his retirement. The procedure followed by the Department is contrary to the
Rule as observed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R.Karuppiah reported
in 2005 (3) CTC 4. Hence, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at
by the Tribunal and unable to appreciate the contra argument made by the
learned Government Advocate. Accordingly, we do not find any error or
infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition fails and
the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also
dismissed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
kh