P. MATHIRAJAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed to call for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. 6942/A3/09 dated 23.9.2009 and quash the condition insofar as it relates to refusal to grant back wages alone for the period from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement of the petitioner in service and direct the 2nd respondent to pay the back wages to the petitioner for the period of unemployment. The case of the petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he was working as a Drawing Master in the Government Higher Secondary School, Perumagelur. On a false complaint foisted, a case in Cr. No. 61/1999 was registered against him before the Vattathikottai Police Station and on trial in S.C. No. 46/2000, he was found guilty and he was convicted. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner and another similarly placed person preferred Crl.A. Nos. 1176 and 1180 of 2000 before the Principal Bench of this Court Madras. Finally, the said appeal was allowed by the Principal Bench of this Court, Madras on 26.2.2008 holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges. While the appeal was pending adjudication; a show cause notice in Na.Ka. No. 13432/A3/2000 by the Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, dated 20.12.2000, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to give explanation as to why he should not be removed from service. Even though satisfactory explanation was offered by the petitioner, he was removed from the service invoking Rule 17(c) of Tamil Nadu Government Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, on 16.7.2001, by the Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur District, second respondent herein.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, wherein, while admitting the averments and allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in the writ petition, he has stated that only after issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner and after observing all the formalities of framing charges, allowing reasonable opportunity to defend his case and duly conducting personal hearing, the impugned order was passed removing him from service. With regard to non-payment of back wages, the second respondent stated that since the petitioner was not actually in service during the relevant time, back wages was not paid to him. Therefore, the second respondent prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government pleader appearing for the respondents. I have gone through the documents available on record.