WP/26426/2023 of S.SATHIABAMA (DECEASED) Vs THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION on 1 October 2026

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original petitioner Sathiabama died on 31.05.2024 and her legal heirs have already been impleaded as petitioners. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sathiabama joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the respondent department on 24.07.1997 and she was promoted as Primary School Headmaster in June 2010. In the meanwhile, on 28.06.2021, she was placed under suspension on the ground that she obtained the appointment by submitting false mark sheets. In pursuance of the suspension order, the respondent had issued a charge memorandum. However, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend herself though she has denied the charges. It is also the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the enquiry officer is cryptic in nature and there are no reasons as to how the enquiry officer has arrived at such conclusion. Therefore, he prayed to

WP No. 26426 of 2023

interfere with the consequential punishment imposed based upon the order of the enquiry officer.

2. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that the petitioner has committed a serious misconduct by submitting forged mark sheets thereby, she has obtained her employment. It is his submission that the charge against the petitioner submitting false mark sheets would make her employment become void ab initio. Therefore, the long service of the petitioner will in no way helpful to her to get any leniency before this court. It is also his submission that after the department came to know about such delinquency, they were constrained to give complaint before the concerned police station, namely Banavaram Police Station and FIR was registered in Crime No.159 of 2021. It is also the contention of the learned Government Advocate that the departmental charge against the petitioner has been proved through the reply received from the Education Department. Therefore, the question of interference with the findings will not arise. Considering the gravity of charges, the punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot be termed as disproportionate. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the application.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

WP No. 26426 of 2023

4. On perusal of the enquiry report, this Court could not find any materials as to the examination of the witnesses or the opportunity provided to the petitioner. This Court, by order dated 07-09-2026, directed the respondent to produce entire enquiry files. As directed by this Court, today, the respondent has submitted the enquiry file. This Court has carefully perused the enquiry file submitted before this Court. On perusal of the enquiry file, on 04-08-2021, the petitioner was given a charge memorandum under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

5. In the charge memorandum, the charge against the petitioner is submission of false mark sheets. After furnishing of the charge memorandum, the deceased Sathiabama has submitted her explanation denying the charge and it was her stand that the certificate which had been submitted by her was given to her at the time of completing her teacher training qualification. It is her specific stand that she passed in the SSLC examination. In sum and substance, she has denied the charge memorandum.

6. After issuance of charge memorandum, one Indira was appointed as an enquiry officer vide disciplinary proceedings dated 06-08-2021. After appointing the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer has issued summon to Sathiabama asking her to appear for enquiry on 22-09-2021. It appears that after

WP No. 26426 of 2023

receiving the summons, the said Sathiabama has given her explanation reiterating her stand. After that, there are no records to show the opportunity given to the petitioner so as to let her oral evidence. It is relevant to mention that there are no records available in the enquiry file as to whether the document relied on in the charge memorandum was marked as an exhibit before the enquiry officer and whether an opportunity was granted to the petitioner so as to confront those documents.

7. It is also relevant to mention that while looking into the disciplinary authority’s order, the disciplinary authority has referred about the marks of the petitioner as per the letter addressed by the Board of Examination. But on perusal of the enquiry report, the enquiry report appears to be very cryptic in nature. Further such report was mechanically followed by the disciplinary authority. Mere marking of the document behind the back of the petitioner cannot be termed as providing effective opportunity to defend the case. In the case in hand, even according to the disciplinary authority's final order, the reasoning given for imposition of punishment of dismissal had been referred to Enquiry Officer's report.

8. However, the enquiry officer's report available in the file is scanned hereunder for ready reference.

WP No. 26426 of 2023

WP No. 26426 of 2023

9. On perusal of the final order dated 07-12-2022, there is no reference about the enquiry officer's report. Therefore, this Court, having its own doubt as to from where the disciplinary authority has got details in respect of the marks provided by the petitioner and the marks obtained from the concerned department. It is inexorable requirement that every order must contain reasoning so as to arrive at a conclusion. While perusing the enquiry report as well as the disciplinary authority’s order, this Court absolutely does not find any reason for their conclusion.

10. Put it differently, the order of the enquiry officer report as well as disciplinary authority’s order is cryptic in nature. Therefore, this Court finds all justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 07-12-2022 on account

WP No. 26426 of 2023

of not following the principles of natural justice and not providing opportunity as provided under Section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules besides no reason in the disciplinary authority’s order. Thus, in view of the above detailed discussion, the impugned order dated 07-12-2022 is set aside.

11. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the delinquent namely Sathiabama died on 31-05-2024. Therefore, there is no purpose in remitting back the matter and that since the delinquent has died, the charge against the petitioner has become abated. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to settle all the terminal benefits to the legal heirs of the employee within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes NR

WP No. 26426 of 2023

To

1. The Director of Elementary Education Chennai-06.

2. The Chief Educational Officer Ranipet, Ranipet District.

3. The District Educational Officer,(Elementary Education)Ranipet, Ranipet District.

4. The Block Educational Officer (No.2) Kaveripakkam At Arakonam, Ranipet District.

WP No. 26426 of 2023

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. NR WP No. 26426 of 2023 01-10-2026