V . JEGANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The petitioner was originally employed as a Secondary Grade teacher in 3rd respondent school and was promoted as Headmaster and retired as such after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2015. While he was working as Headmaster, he was placed under suspension on 3.8.2012 in regard to certain acts of misconduct relating to the year 2011- 12. The substance of the charge against the petitioner was that he did not properly disburse scholarships meant for the children of sanitary workers. The petitioner offered his explanation on 17.8.2012 denying the allegations stating that the scholarships meant for children had been fully disbursed to them. Subsequently, by order dated 11.2.2013, suspension came to be revoked without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. Later, an enquiry was conducted into the charges and a report was submitted holding the charges 3 and 4 were not proved. Even in respect of charges 1 and 2, the report did not indict the petitioner. In view of the report of the Enquiry Officer, 3rd respondent passed an order on 29.7.2014, exonerating the petitioner from all charges and the period of suspension from 3.8.2012 to 10.2.2013 has been treated as duty period. Subsequently, on the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation, he was allowed to retire and a relieving order was also issued to that effect on 30.4.2015 by the 3rd respondent. On retirement of the petitioner, 3rd respondent had also issued a certificate to the effect that there was no criminal/departmental enquiry was pending against him.

(3.) While matters stood thus, 1st respondent appears to have sent a communication dated 9.12.2015 to 3rd respondent school management stating that the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges 1 and 2 were proved, however, 3rd respondent school management without taking into account the same, exonerated the petitioner and hence, 3rd respondent was directed to offer its explanation. In response to the above direction, 3rd respondent submitted a letter dated 31.12.2015 stating that the petitioner had not committed any act of misconduct and he rendered nearly 30 years of service. In the circumstances, the petitioner approached in this Court in W.P.No.25515 of 2016. This Court, by order dated 22.7.2016, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.6.2016. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, first respondent, vide proceedings dated 20.9.2016 rejected the request of the petitioner and refused to accept the exoneration order passed by 3rd respondent management and also treatment of the suspension period as duty. According to 1st respondent, similarly placed persons involved in the same act of misconduct were imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 15 months without cumulative effect as the petitioner was also involved in similar act of misconduct, the authority was not inclined to accept the exoneration order passed by 3rd respondent management. The said order passed by 2nd respondent dated 20.09.2016 is put to challenge in the present writ petition.