C. SANTHINI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/Petitioner has focussed the present Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 30.08.2010 in W.P.No.42731 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.6000 of 1999), passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THE Learned Single Judge while passing the orders on 30.08.2010 in W.P.No.42731 of 2006 (T) (O.A.No.6000 of 1999), in paragraph 10, has, inter alia, stated that 'the frequent postal remarks clearly indicate that the petitioner was not at her residence and her deliberate failure to present any petition/representation to the department seeking revocation of suspension order or seeking reinstatement or seeking payment of subsistence allowance clearly disqualifies the petitioner from making the prayer for payment of subsistence allowance. No doubt the respondent should have proceeded by affixing the notice for enquiry at the conspicuous place on her last known residential address. However, since the petitioner successfully evaded for the last 17 years, by withholding the latest address, in anticipation of adverse departmental proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings from the Court, this court does not incline to show any indulgence sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a direction for payment of subsistence allowance. On the other hand, since the respondent did not pass any final order on the charge memo issued on her relating to various irregularities though she reached the age of superannuation in view of no order having been passed permitting her to retire from service, it is open to the respondent to proceed with departmental proceedings by serving or affixing notice on her house in accordance with law' and resultantly, dismissed the writ petition without costs.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner submits that the Learned Single Judge should have seen that under Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rule 56 (1) (C), a Government Servant under suspension, on a charge of misconduct, or against whom an enquiry into grave charges of misconduct or allegations of criminal misconduct is pending, against whom enquiry into grave charges is contemplated or is pending or against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation shall not be permitted to retire on reaching the age of superannuation but shall be retained in service till the completion of the proceedings.