SOWPACKIAVATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge memo, dated 05.02.2014, issued by the third respondent, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as B.T.Assistant (English) in Panchayat Union Middle School, Kulavaipatti, Annavasal Union, Pudukottai District, on 15.09.2010. The petitioner was transferred to the fifth respondent Panchayat Union Middle School, Naickanpatti, on 01.08.2012. The petitioner states that she along with her husband reported before the fourth respondent and submitted a joining report, at that point of time, the seventh respondent demanded bribe amount for accepting the joining report. The writ petitioner refused to give any bribe. Thereafter, the seventh respondent has taken a personal vengeance against the writ petitioner and threatened her by stating that departmental disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner states that on account of the mala fide intention, the charge memo has been issued. Therefore, the impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The charges against the writ petitioner are extracted hereunder: