(Prayer: The writ petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records the 2nd Respondent, quash the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 27.07.2021 bearing Na. Ka. No. 2731 / A3 / 2018 and the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 10.04.2022 bearing Na. Ka. No. 2731 / A3 / 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the increments of the petitioner and pay arrears of salary and all other monetary benefits.)

1. Seeking to quash the order dated 27.07.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and the subsequent order dated 10.04.2022 with consequential direction to restore the increments of the petitioner and pay arrears of salary and all other monetary benefits, the petitioner is before this Court.

Brief facts:-

2. The petitioner was appointed as B.T. Assistant on 06.03.2006. Her first place of posting was Panchayat Union Middle School, Kollamangalam, Madhanur Union, Vellore District. Subsequently, she was transferred to Panchayat Union Middle School, V.O.C. Nagar, Sathuvachari on 14.05.2008. From where she was transferred to Panchayat Union Middle School, Pulimedu as Headmistress and joined there on 31.05.2013. In the said school one Mrs. P.Valamarthi was working from the year 2006 and she did not have cordial relationship with the teachers, Headmaster and students. Prior to the petitioner’s joining the Panchayat Union Middle School, Pulimedu, Mrs. P. Valamarthi had harassed several Headmasters.

3. Immediately after the petitioner assumed charge as Headmistress, on 25.06.2013 the said Valarmathi sought permission to leave the school during working hours without any valid reason. The said request was refused by the petitioner. However, the said Valarmathi, after throwing an unsigned letter at the petitioner and without obtaining her permission, left the school premises. It appears that after leaving the school, the said Valarmathi went to the residence of the Village Panchayat President and threatened him on account of her previous enmity.

4. On the very same day, the Village Panchayat President came to the school and questioned the petitioner as to how Valarmathi had gone to his house during school hours and informed the petitioner about the threat made by her. On 26.06.2013, while the petitioner was making rounds within the school campus and upon approaching Valarmathi’s classroom, the said Valarmathi abused her in filthy language. The petitioner had reported all the above incidents to her immediate superior. On the basis of the petitioner’s report, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer had come to the school for inspection on 04.07.2013. On the very same day, complaints were also given by the President of Village School Committee, parents and the local public. Based on the complaints, the Assistant Elementary Educational Officer had submitted a report to the District Elementary Educational Officer recommending deputation of the said Valarmathi to some other school.

5. On account of the arrogant behaviour of the said Valarmathi towards the children, parents and public, the public gathered in the petitioner’s room on 05.07.2013 and complained about her. While, the petitioner was trying to pacify the public, a section of public went to the classroom of the said Valarmathi and after bringing the students out from the class room, locked the said Valarmathi inside the classroom. This was happened around 11.20 am. The moment the petitioner came to know about the same, she rushed to the spot and requested the public to remove the lock. This was not heeded to by them. The petitioner immediately escalated the issue to the higher authorities and the respondents rushed to the school along with the Block Development Officer. The police had also rushed to the school and on their intervention, the lock was removed. The public and the Village Education Committee President had filed a complaint against the said Valarmathi and the Valarmathi had also filed complaint against the Panchayat President and three others. Thereafter, the said Valarmathi was transferred from Panchayat Union Middle School, Puliamedu but later again joined the same school on 16.08.2013.

6. While so, the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo under Section 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) which was later converted as a charge memo dated 11.09.2013 under Section 17(b) of the Rules. The petitioner had challenged the charge memo by filing WP.No.26662 of 2013. This Court by order dated 10.09.2020 dismissed the Writ Petition stating that the petitioner could defend the charge memo and the conversion of charge memo from Section 17(a) to 17(b) of the Rules did not violate the petitioner’s rights.

7. After the dismissal of WP.No.26662 of 2013, as per the direction of the respondents, the petitioner submitted her replies to the questionnaires issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents on 12.03.2021 and 22.07.2021, respectively. Thereafter, without holding any enquiry and without the charge being proved, by order dated 27.07.2021, the 2nd respondent, had imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said punishment order before the 1st respondent. However, no order was passed. Thereafter, on 04.04.2022, the petitioner preferred a Review to the 2nd respondent. The said Review was rejected by an order dated 10.04.2022.

8. The charges that were levelled against the petitioner in the charge memo dated 11.09.2013 are as follows:- "

                   (i) Violated Rule 20(1) of the Conduct Rules;

                   (ii) That when Mrs. Valarmathi was locked in the class room during working hours I failed to prevent it;

                   (iii) That Mrs. Valarmathi had gone to the Panchayat President House at 11 am and threatened him that if he gives a complaint against her, she will close him and that I have permitted Mrs. Valarmathi to go out of the School during working hours;

                   (iv) That I was instrumental in public indulging in locking the school and agitating

                   (v) I did not conduct the School in peaceful manner and that resulted in a fight between the public and teacher.”

9. All of these charges relate to the said Valarmathi leaving the school premises during the working hours without permission on 25.06.2013 and threatening the Panchayat President which resulted in the public entering the school premises and locking of Valarmathi in her classroom. The reason for all these agitation was only on account of the attitude of the said Valarmathi and the manner in which she conducted herself. Initially, the petitioner was not aware that the said Valarmathi had been locked inside the classroom due to the crowd. On coming to know about the same, she took steps not only to inform her superior but also to open the door. However, the public physically prevented her from doing so.

10. The petitioner’s grievance is that before the impugned order was passed she was not being given appropriate opportunity to put forth her case. That apart, the enquiry report which has referred to in the impugned order has not been served on the petitioner. The petitioner was issued only two questionnaires, which she had duly filled in and submitted and that was the only enquiry conducted. Hence, the present writ petition.

11. The 2nd respondent had filed a vacate stay petition along with a counter wherein they would submit that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to present her case and she had answered the questionnaires which was given to her twice. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forth her case is absolutely false. The charges have been properly framed and the petitioner has also been given sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the basis on which the Writ Petition has been filed is non existent and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit denying the contentions raised by the respondents in their counter affidavit.

13. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.

14. A mere reading of the impugned order would clearly show the total non application of mind on the part of the 2nd respondent. The action of said Valarmathi leaving the school during the school hours and picking up quarrel with the Village Panchayat President have all been done without the knowledge of the petitioner. The said Valarmathi who alone was responsible for the ruckus in the school has not been charge sheeted and the petitioner who attempted damage control has been penalised. This is case where the perpetrator has been left scot-free and the innocent has been penalised.

15. The entire proceedings of the 2nd respondent appears to be vitiated in as much as the principles of natural justice has been given a total go by. It appears that the 2nd respondent had just permitted the petitioner to fill up a questionnaire form and based on this the 2nd respondent held the petitioner guilty without conducting any enquiry or examining any witness. A fair opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her case, which is a cornerstone of the justice delivery system, has been ignored in the present case. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.