AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—This review petition is filed against the order dated 25.09.2012 made in W.P. No. 13052 of 2012. I do not find
any merit in the review petition. However, the learned Special Government Pleader has placed heavy reliance on Rule 9-A of the Tamil Nadu Civil
Services (D & A) Rules and submitted that the Director of School Education is the competent authority to take action against the respondent/writ
petitioner since the respondent/writ petitioner-Junior Assistant and the Headmaster were jointly involved in the irregularities.
Therefore, even according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the Government is not the competent authority to impose the penalty of
dismissal.
The learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the Headmaster attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of
disciplinary proceedings and he was permitted to retire from service and departmental action was continued under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978 by the Government. Hence, the Government is the competent authority to pass order in the case of the respondent/petitioner
also. I am not able to agree with the said submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader.
In the case of petitioner, if she retires from service and it is decided to continue disciplinary action under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the
Government can very well proceed under the Pension Rules. But in the case of the petitioner, she is still in service and she has not reached the age
of superannuation. Proceedings were initiated by the Director of School Education by issuing charge sheet. But the Government has passed the
order of dismissal against the petitioner, while it has no authority to do the same. In view of dismissal order passed against the petitioner, she has
lost her valuable right of appeal.
For all the foregoing reasons, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that
in view of the dismissal of the review petition, three months'' time as given in the writ petition vide order dated 25.09.2012 may be given to pass
final orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the request made by the learned Special Government Pleader.
Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. The Director of School Education is directed to pass final orders within a period of three
months from today. It is made clear that the Director of School Education shall either restore the petitioner to duty or to keep her under suspension
till such time. In view of the order passed in the Review Petition, the contempt petition is closed.