P. ARIVAZHAGI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a noon meal organiser. While she was working in the said capacity, a surprise inspection was made. As the petitioner was found to be not performing her duty properly she was suspended and charges have been framed against her. Thereafter, by the Order dated 27.9.2013, she was warned and incidentally three punishments have been imposed. The suspension period of the petitioner was treated as ''no work no pay'' and she was restrained from seeking any right for the suspended period. The increment of the petitioner was withheld for a period of one year without cumulative effect. Incidentally the petitioner was also transferred on punitive grounds. Challenging the Order dated 29.7.2013, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that after having imposed punitive transfer by way of punishment the impugned order cannot be sustained. A warning can adversely be termed as a minor punishment. Therefore, the consequential three punishments cannot be imposed, that too, without conducting any enquiry and without any basis. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard and therefore the order impugned dated 23.9.2013 having civil consequence cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that as seen from the counter affidavit the petitioner was transferred as a punishment and also to avoid quarrel with the school authorities. Therefore, the said order has been passed both by way of punishment and also on administrative grounds. Now coming to the impugned order, it states that the petitioner is warned for her conduct. However, without conducting any enquiry and without hearing the petitioner three punishments have been imposed. Admittedly, these three punishments have got civil consequences. Therefore, even on this ground the order impugned cannot be sustained.