S SATHYA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has joined as P.G.Assistant in the Government Higher Secondary School in Karingal on 03.01.1979 and thereafter, was promoted as Headmaster, Higher Secondary School with effect form 27.01.1995 and as on date working as Headmaster in the Sethu Lekshmi Bai, Government Higher Secondary School, Nagerocil, Kanyakumari District and he is qualified for the said post. When there was a dispute regarding his regularization in the post of P.G. Assistant on the ground that his appointment on compassionate ground and he should be paid as B.T. Assistant scale, he has approached the Tamil Nadir Administrative Tribunal, for regularisation as a P.G. Assistant and by order dated 22.12.1992, the Tribunal has directed to regularise the Petitioner's service with effect from the original appointment namely on 03.01.1997 and the specialleave petition filed against the order also was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.09.1994. It was, thereafter, the Joint Director of School Education, hasregularised the services of the Petitioner with effect from03.01.1979 by order dated 04.06.1996. Since there was some delay in posting the Petitioner as Headmaster, he was shown as Junior to the persons who were appointed after him and therefore, he has made a representation. In the list of seniority of Headmasters originally issued by the Joint Director, dated 04.06.1996, the Petitioner was shown as S. No. 971 below R.Janarthanam and above Bagavathi Nadar.When a list of persons to be promoted for appointment asDistrict Educational Officers and District Elementary Educational Officers prepared by the second and thirdRespondents on 05.12.2007, the Petitioner's name has beenleft out. Therefore, he has filed W.P. No. 5234 of 2007 for a direction to include him in the list of candidates eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of District Educational Officers and District Elementary Educational Officers according to the seniority. However, in the meantime, the second Respondent Director of Education has issued a charge memo dated 29.01.2008 which is subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 8964 of 2010. The charge is that the Petitioner has not maintained accounts regarding the school development funds and therefore, violated the Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. The Petitioner has submitted his explanation on05.03.2008. The committee constituted as School Development Committee has found that in respect of the maintenance of accounts for school development committee, the Headmaster has No. role to play. It was, due to that reason that inspite of the charge having been framed by the third Respondent as early as on 13.02.2008 and the explanation having been submitted by the Petitioner there was no progress, the Petitioner has filed W.P. No. 7565 of 2008 for a direction against the Director of School Education to complete the disciplinary proceedings based on the charge memo, dated 29.01.2008. This Court, on 18.09.2008, after hearing both the sides has directed the second Respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings and pass final orders within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Even after the lapse of six months, there was No. proceedings initiated based on the charge memo and the second Respondent has not chosen to obtain any order from this Court for extension for completion of disciplinary proceedings and it is stated that till date the disciplinary proceedings has not been completed and therefore, the charge memo is challenged in W.P. No. 8964 of2010 on the ground that in spite of the order passed in W.P. No. 7565 of 2008 on 18.09.2008 directing the secondRespondent to complete the enquiry within six months time,the enquiry has not been completed and No. extension hasbeen obtained and therefore, the second Respondent loseshis jurisdiction from proceeding with the charge memo.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it is stated that the charges were framed against the Petitioner under Section 17-b of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and the second Respondent is authority competent to initiate disciplinary action. In the 2007 panel, the Petitioner was not included because he has not reached for promotion during that time, for the post of District Educational Officer since the crucial date was 01.01.2007.

(3.) It is also denied that the juniors have been given promotion in the panel 2007, the enquiry is also done with Vigilance Department and it is only after final report received from the Vigilance Department, the Director of Education, can proceed further in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the Petitioner's name could not be included in the panel namely, in the year 2008-2009. While, it is admitted that in the impugned charge memo dated29.01.2008, the Petitioner has given explanation on05.03.2008 stating that A. Karuppusami, the then Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary) was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the second Respondent and therefore, requested to submit his Enquiry report by the second Respondent on 20.02.2010. It is stated that Mr. A. Karuppusami, by his letter, dated 26.08.2010 has submitted that he has gone to Nagercoil to conduct enquiry and he recorded evidence on 03.07.2009, 24.07.2009,09.10.2009, 06.11.2009, 27.11.2009 and 29.01.2010. Thereafter, it is stated that the Petitioner has taken time for examining his witnesses and subsequently in the month of March 2009, the Enquiry Officer was busy with the examination and valuation and thereafter, he was transferred as Joint Director. It is also stated that the enquiry could not be taken up further. Therefore, the reasons given by the Respondents in the counter affidavit for not completing the enquiry are that the pendency of vigilance enquiry, non availability of enquiry officer and also time taken by the Petitioner through his counsel.