S. Amal Antony vs The Director of Elementary, Education of Tamil Nadu

T. Raja, J.—The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect

by the respondent in Na.Ka. No. 30892/EK1/97(1), dated 04.02.1999.

When the petitioner was serving as Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, he was issued with a charge memo dated 08.08.1997

for the charges having found in a drunken mood and also assaulted a retired teacher. The petitioner, after receiving the charge memo, submitted his

explanation. After the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered and finally, the enquiry officer found him guilty on the basis of

the findings of the enquiry officer and again, further representation also submitted by the petitioner, but the same was also not accepted. Therefore,

he was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said punishment, the present

OA came to be filed.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has sent the teachers of Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers

Federation on deputation, office bearers of the said Association have lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. But the enquiry officer has not

considered the explanation offered by the petitioner alleging the malafide attitude shown by some of the members of the office bearers of the Tamil

Nadu Primary Teachers Federation. As a result, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with

cumulative effect. Therefore, the imposition of the above said punishment without considering the representation made by the petitioner and even

without properly enquiring the office bearers of the Tamil Nadu Primary Teachers Federation and by not allowing the petitioner to cross examine

the above said members, is amounting to the violation of the principles of natural justice. On that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned

order.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

The allegations made against the petitioner are very serious in nature, because when the petitioner was serving as Additional Assistant

Elementary Educational Officer, he was found in a drunken mood with intoxication and not only that, he had also beaten another retired teacher.

Therefore, when the enquiry was ordered, the enquiry officer found him guilty of all the charges and imposed only a lighter punishment of stoppage

of increment for three years with cumulative effect. This Court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, cannot dive into the evidentiary area to reappreciate the factual aspects except to find out whether the decision challenged herein is the

result of proper procedure followed by the disciplinary authority.

In that view of the matter, since the petitioner also retired from service and the punishment imposed against the petitioner is being not excessive,

this Court is not inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed against the petitioner, as has been repeatedly held by this Court as

well as Apex Court in a Catena of cases that the High Courts, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not normally interfere with

the quantum of punishment unless the same is shown to be arbitrary or perverse or is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.

In the present case, I find no perversity or disproportionate in the imposition of punishment. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be

dismissed and the same is dismissed. No Costs.