C SANTHINI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner C.Santhini filed O.A.No.6000/1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking revocation of suspension order with consequent prayer to regularise the suspension period from 10.9.1982 to 30.9.1997 as duty period for all purposes with consequential service and monetary benefits. THE third prayer sought for in the present petition is to issue direction to retire the petitioner from service with effect from 30.9.1997 afternoon as this date is the date of superannuation of the petitioner.

(2.) (i)The petitioner after her initial appointment as B.T.Teacher in the Government Girls High School, Kovilpatti joined duty on 21.8.1960. Thereafter, she was promoted as Headmistress on 17.11.1972. While she was serving as Headmistress of Government Girls High School at Alangayam in Vellore District, she was placed under suspension from service by order passed by the second respondent-The Chief Educational Officer, Vellore in his proceedings Rc.No.15168/B1/82 dated 10.9.1982 on the basis that there were grave charges against the petitioner. Subsequent to the order of suspension, no proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were initiated against the petitioner. She was not even paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension though she was eligible and entitled under the Fundamental Rules 53(1) at the rate of 50% of her basic pay plus equivalent for the first six months and at the rate of 75% of her basic pay plus equivalent for the period beyond six months. (ii)The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner was kept under suspension from 10.9.1982 the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance. Despite repeated representations made by the petitioner to the respondent to revoke the prolonged suspension with the consequential prayer to reinstate her in service and also to disburse the subsistence allowance regularly every month, the respondent failed to respond to the request of the petitioner for revocation of prolonged suspension nor considered the request of reinstatement, leave alone the disbursement of subsistence allowance. Subsequently, the petitioner also attained the age of superannuation on 05.9.1997 and that she was due for retirement on 30.9.1997. Again no order of retirement was issued to her. (iii)The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the absence of any order being issued to her permitting her to retire from service on 30.9.1997 it must be deemed that the petitioner has retired from service on 30.9.1997 and the order of suspension also must be deemed to have been revoked automatically. Inasmuch as there was no specific order passed under F.R.53(1) not permitting her to retire from service or when there was absence of order retaining her in service pending suspension, the suspension order has been deemed to have been revoked. (iv)On that basis the learned counsel for the petitioner further pleaded that the entire period of suspension from 10.9.1982 to the date of retirement 30.9.1997 has to be treated as duty period for all purposes and the petitioner thereafter being entitled to all consequential benefits, should be paid of all the benefits. Since the plight of the petitioner was not considered, she was constrained to file O.A.No.1723/1999 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.2.1989. The Tribunal by its order dated 16.3.1999 also passed a direction to the respondents to consider the said representation on merits and pass orders within eight weeks. In the light of the abovesaid order, the first respondent by passing the order dated 23.7.1999 informed the petitioner that her request for revocation of suspension order so as to treat the suspension period as 'duty period' cannot be considered. The said order is under challenge.

(3.) (i)After her transfer as Headmistress and posted to Government Girls High School at Alangayam, Vellore District, she joined in the said school on 15.11.1981. Immediately after her joining the petitioner entered on medical leave from the next day onwards from 16.11.1981 and again extended the leave in piece meal basis upto 16.7.1982. On all occasions it was seriously contended that the petitioner failed to note the leave address legibly. For the said act of lapse it was also pointedly proved that the Inspector of Girls School, Vellore after calling her explanation from the petitioner as Headmistress, she gave her letter dated 12.7.1982 to the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore assuring that she could not go on leave if the pay at Alangayam is paid to her. Again in the said letter dated 12.7.1982 she failed to furnish the leave address. However, she was paid with the Pay and Allowances for the period upto 27-6-1982. Prior to the incident it is also relevant to keep it in mind that the petitioner was also placed under suspension by the Chief Education Officer, Tirunelveli for the period from 24.8.1973 to 3.9.1973. Subsequently, as a measure of punishment annual increment of the petitioner was stopped twice for the irregularities committee by her at Tirunelveli District. In fact stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect was made by the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli by proceedings Rc.No.3739/C.2/76 dated 16.1.1978. In another proceedings in Rc.No.40770/C.2/78 dated 07.2.1980 the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli again stopped increment for one year without cumulative effect. In spite of all these the grievance all alone made by the respondent is that the petitioner never furnished her leave address at any point of time. (ii)Therefore when she joined duty on 31.7.1982 again she did not turn up for duty from 1.8.1982 and the incharge Headmaster of the Government Girls High School, Alangayam in his letter dated 7.9.1982 reported the abovesaid lapses along with the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had drawn the money from the Special Fee Fund Account which was maintained at the local Post Office as detailed below: 1. 27.02.1982 Rs.10,000.00 19.03.1982 Rs. 1,500.00 20.03.1982 Rs. 1,500.00 19.04.1982 Rs. 280.00 25.06.1982 Rs. 16.40 Rs.13,296.40 2. Drawn From P/D Account :- 20.02.1982 Rs. 90.70 24.02.1982 Rs. 250.00 25.02.1982 Rs. 1,300.00 20.03.1982 Rs. 850.00 20.04.1982 Rs. 200.00 Rs. 2.690.70 3. Drawn from Medical Aid Fund Rs.800.00 In view of the above, the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore in his communication dated 10.9.1982 placed the petitioner under suspension with cumulative effect. The order of suspension was sent to her through the Headmaster, Government Girls High School, Alangayam to the following address. C. Sandini Thiru Nelannanda Kulalar Vidhuthi, Jeyalakshmi Vilas Kutralam Tenkasi taluk Tirunelveli District on 30.9.1982 by registered post. But the postal authorities reported that the cover has been returned saying -No such addressee-. Again the suspension order was served to the petitioner to the following addresses: 1. C. Sandini-sent through No.62-63 Madurai Road the Headmaster Tirunelveli Govt. Girls High School, Alangayam 2. C.Sandini -sent though No.43 Town Police Line Inspector of Villupuram Post Girls Schools, South Arcot District Tirunelveli as per proceedings Rc.No.22322/A.1.81 dated 28-12-1982. Once again the postal authorities have returned the postal envelope -left- returned to the sender-. (iii)Therefore the authorities were against the petitioner for the various irregularities committed by her in the capacity as Headmistress and the Chief Educational Officer, Vellore in his proceedings Rc.No.15168/B.1/82 dated 27.11.1982 served the specific charges through Inspector of Girls, Tirunelveli. Once again the same was sent through by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. But the said envelope also returned saying that the "party is not available in the place of address for a long time and the present whereabouts are not known and hence returned to the sender". (iv)Therefore, it was very clear that the petitioner has given room for various irregularities involving financial irregularities for which various charges were framed against her. But as the leave address or the latest address was not known, the respondents were not able to proceed further. (v)That apart a police case was also registered against the petitioner at Alangayam for misappropriation of Government money in Crime No.34/84 under Section 409 I.P.C., on 29.02.1984. The above case was under investigation. The petitioner by moving the High Court obtained anticipatory bail by order on 12.12.1984 and this fact was intimated to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Alangayam. The Inspector of Police, Alangayam in its letter dated 9.5.1986 has reported about the inability in serving summon as the whereabouts of the petitioner was not known even to her husband. (vi)Another fact was also transpired from the records. When a report was received on 01.11.1989 from the Alangayam police station stating that a criminal case is under trial in Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court at Tirunelveli and the arrest warrant was also issued to the petitioner by the Court, the same was also not served for want of her residential address. These are all clearly proved the act of petitioner's deliberate and well planned maneuverability to escape from the catches of the department as well as from the Court of law. As a matter of fact, a teacher who is expected to show atmost devotion and responsibility to the school should have approached the department by way of written request asking the department to revoke the suspension order and also to complete the enquiry. Admittedly that was not done. Secondly, if it is presumed that the petitioner was under suspension for quite a long time, the petitioner being a responsible Headmaster of Government Girls High School, Alangayam, at no point of time gave any letter in writing to the school or to the educational authorities furnishing her latest address for service of any communication, leave alone the notice from the department. More so, the petitioner's conduct in getting anticipatory bail from the High Court on 12.12.1984 and subsequently in view of pendency of Criminal Case No.571/89 on the file of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Court at Tirupathur which has also issued arrest warrant for her continuous evasion from appearance clearly go to show that the petitioner deliberately absconded from the department. Therefore, she cannot be allowed to say that the respondents failed to serve notice on her.