DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION Vs. P N THIRUVENGADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative tribunal, Chennai dated 17. 08. 2001, made in O. A. No. 3617 of 2000, the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai-6 and the District Elementary Educational officer, Villupuram, have preferred the above writ petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the first respondent herein worked as Headmaster in the Panchayat Union Elementary School , agoor, Mayilam Panchayat Union. A charge memo was issued on 15. 04. 1999, calling upon him to submit his explanation for marrying second and third wives, while the first wife is alive. On 11. 06. 1999, the first respondent submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered to be held by framing charges. Charge memo was issued to the first respondent on 17. 08. 1999, for violation of tamil Nadu Government Servents'Conduct Rules, as he married two women while the first wife is alive. The first respondent acknowledged the receipt of the charge memo on 06. 09. 1999 and requested further time for giving his explanation on 08. 08. 1999. He made further request to furnish copies of documents pertaining to the charges leveled against him. On 04. 10. 1999, he was permitted to peruse the documents. On 08. 10. 1999, he perused the documents and received copies of the same. On 22. 10. 1999, orders were issued holding that the charges were proved and he was removed from service. The first respondent filed o. A. No. 6552 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the said order dated 21. 10. 1999, dismissing him from service. Consequent to the interim order, first respondent was reinstated on 18. 11. 1999. In the meantime, he attained superannuation on 30. 11. 1999. By order dated 03. 01. 2000 made in o. A. No. 6552 of 1999, the Tribunal, allowed his application holding that the admission of the applicant prior to the issue of charge memo cannot be put against him. However, the Tribunal permitted the Department to proceed with the charge memo afresh. On 28. 04. 2000, charge memo was reissued for conducting enquiry. The first respondent acknowledged the charge memo on 15. 05. 2000. Again, he requested further time for submitting his explanation. He once again approached the Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 3617 of 2000. By the impugned order dated 17. 08. 2001, the Tribunal set aside the charge memo dated 28. 04. 2000 and observed that the first respondent shall be deemed to have retire from service on 30. 11. 1999, on attaining the age of superannuation. The Tribunal, also directed that the first respondent shall be paid all the retirement benefits within a period of three months. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed.