A AROCKIAM Vs. DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the respondent dated 25. 3. 2003 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1989 and promoted as Headmaster of Middle School on 1. 7. 1997. He was further promoted as additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer on 24. 8. 2000. While he was working in the said capacity at Madurai East Panchayat Union, he was placed under suspension on 6. 3. 2002 on three charges viz. , (i) In the Meeting held on 19. 1. 2002, petitioner criticised the Government and thereby violated rule 12 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules; (ii)Unnecessarily directed teachers belonging to other Union to visit his office and falsely implicated the Panchayat Union Primary School teacher, namely, p. Velusamy, and thereby given disrespect to his post and the same is in violation of Rule 20 (3) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct rules; and ( iii) Retirement benefits and pension proposals in respect of the head Master of Chinnamangalam Panchayat Union Elementary School was not sent in time though he was to retire on 31. 3. 2002 A. N. , and not sanctioned arrears of incentive increment to one Charles Immanuel and thereby the petitioner is guilty of dereliction of duty and violated Rule 20 (1) of the Tamil Nadu government Servants' Conduct Rules. In respect of the above charges, an enquiry was conducted and the charges were held to be proved, pursuant to which the above mentioned punishment was imposed on the petitioner.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit the respondent has stated that the petitioner criticised the Government in the staff meeting held on 19. 1. 200 2 and therefore charge No. 1 is proved and in respect of second charge, petitioner unnecessarily called the lady teachers and raised false allegations against the said teacher and thus attracted second charge and in respect of the third charge, there is dereliction of duty since the petitioner delayed payment of dues to the teachers referred in the charge. It is further stated that only after due enquiry the charges were held to be proved and ultimately punishment was imposed, which is perfectly in order.