Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3172 (MAD)

P. Ponnan v. The Superintendent, Borstol School

2009-08-14

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2009
Judgment 1. Heard the submissions made by Mr. R. Singaravelan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnu Priya, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Grade II Warder in the year 1965. He did not possess the required educational qualification namely VIII standard. Therefore, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.1313, Home Dept., dated 05.06.1987, relaxing the educational qualification so as to enable the petitioner being regularised in the post of Warder Grade II. 3. The petitioner seems to have produced certificate stating that he passed VIII standard and hence he was promoted to the post of Warder Grade I with effect from 18.07.1986. The genuineness of the said certificate was sent for verification to the educational authorities. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 31.01.1999 and therefore he had retired from service on 31.01.1999. He was also paid all the retirement benefits. Thereafter, the respondent issued impugned charge memo dated 26.01.2001 under Rule 17(B) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The crux of the allegation was that, after his retirement, the Pudukottai District Educational Officer had sent a report on 07.04.1999 and the Director of School Education had sent a report on 05.05.1999 stating that the petitioner did not pass VIII standard and that the certificate produced by him was not genuine. 4. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 195 of 2002 to quash the aforesaid charge memo in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and on abolition of the Tribunal, the said O.A was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P. No.9270 of 2007. 5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned charge memo is without jurisdiction. Once the petitioner has retired from service, the respondent cannot invoke Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules against him. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cites the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in N.M. Somasundaram Vs. The Director General of Police reported in 1997 Writ L.R. 120 wherein this Court had held that in the absence of the order refusing to permit the Government servant to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the Competent authority had lost jurisdiction to continue the disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 7. I find considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I find considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has no power to initiate disciplinary proceeding under Rule 17b of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, after the petitioner was permitted to retire from service. Hence the impugned charge memo is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned charge memo is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.