P.NAGESWARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner submits that he is working as Headmaster in the Gandhiji Primary School, Pottulupatti, Vadipatti Taluk. In the election held for the local bodies on 16.10.2001, he was posted as Election Officer for Ward No.6, Vadipatti Panchayat Union No.7. Mrs.M.Bhavani was the Chief Election Officer. Mrs.R.Chandra also was functioning as Election Officer, who maintained the electoral roll and obtained the signature of the voters in the register. It appears that there was about 100 excess votes in the box and the officers in charge of election requested him to give a statement stating that there was commotion among the crowd on 3 or 4 different periods of times and 100 votes had been taken by anti-social elements. They obtained the statement for the purpose of settling the issue of 100 votes found in excess in the box. The election result was declared and nobody challenged the election. The petitioner further submits that Mrs.Chandra, who was working in the Government High School, Vadipatti, was solely responsible for the maintenance of the register and electoral role. However, the Government Officer fixed the responsibility on the petitioner. Further, the petitioner submitted that he had given the statement to the officers concerned as they had affirmed that the issue will be closed.

(2.) THE second respondent, viz., District Elementary Educational Officer by his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.10409/A4/2001, dated 28.12.2001 directed the third respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for the alleged incident in the local body election. The first respondent i.e., the District Collector had unilaterally decided that he was responsible. The second and third respondents directed the school to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him regarding the alleged incident in the election. The fourth respondent, initiated disciplinary proceedings and called for his explanation. He submitted his explanation on 23.01.2002 to the fourth respondent. On the basis of the pressure exercised by the respondents 1, 2 and 3, the fourth respondent imposed a punishment of withholding the increment for six months without cumulative effect. He was not responsible for the alleged offence, but on the instigation exercised by the respondents 1 to 3, the fourth respondent imposed the punishment and the punishment was given effect to and the punishment was recorded in the service register and counter signed by the third respondent. The punishment imposed on him was also informed to the respondents 1 to 3. The first respondent, not being satisfied by the punishment imposed on him, compelled the second and third respondents to initiate further proceedings against him under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. The second and third respondents threatened the fourth respondent that they would take action for de-recognition of the fourth respondent-school and coerced the fourth respondent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules for the second time.

(3.) NO counter statement has been filed by the respondents till date. However, it is seen that the writ petition is pending for about 10 years on this Court file and therefore, this Court is constrained to pass a final order on the basis of available records and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels.