F.Francis Charles v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.No.12351 of 2026 F.Francis Charles S/o.M.Edward ... Appellant vs.
1.
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary School Education Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Director of Elementary Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.
The Chief Educational Officer Coimbatore District Coimbatore.
4.
The District Educational Officer (Elementary) (I/C) Pollachi Coimbatore District.
... Respondents Page Nos.1/6
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to allow this writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 13.02.2026 made in W.P.No.4141 of 2026 and grant the relief as sought for in the writ petition. For Appellant :
Ms.R.Nivedha For Respondents :
Dr.R.Gouri Government Counsel *****
J U D G M E N T
[Made by S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.,] The writ order dated 13.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.4141 of 2026 is under challenge in the present writ petition. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.
2. The writ petition has been instituted challenging the order of suspension dated 21.01.2026. An order of suspension can be challenged on limited grounds. Suspension per se is not a punishment. The object of suspension is to ensure that a fair departmental enquiry is conducted by following procedures and by affording opportunity to the delinquent officer. Therefore, keeping an employee away from performing his official duties Page Nos.2/6
during the period of enquiry, if required, then an order of suspension is to be passed by the competent authority.
3. In the present case, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the appellant has violated Rules 19 and 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973 and an enquiry into grave charges against the appellant was contemplated. On contemplation of charges, the appellant was placed under suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. That apart, the impugned order of suspension was issued only on 21.01.2026. As rightly held by the writ Court, the merits of the case need not be adjudicated by the writ Court at this stage. The appellant has made an attempt to adjudicate the issues on merits by placing several communications which all are to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority as well as during the enquiry proceedings. The High Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts relating to the disciplinary proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued vehemently that the order of the writ Court is infirm.
Page Nos.3/6
5. The review power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that the process through which a decision has been taken by the competent authorities is in consonance with the Statutes and Rules in force but not a decision itself. Therefore, disputed facts relating to the allegations are to be adjudicated by following the procedures as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and by affording opportunity to the delinquent officer. This being the legal position, which has been reiterated by the writ Court in the order impugned, no further interference is called for. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 12.06.2026 Index : Yes Speaking order mk Page Nos.4/6
To 1.
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary School Education Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Director of Elementary Education DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.
The Chief Educational Officer Coimbatore District Coimbatore.
4.
The District Educational Officer (Elementary) (I/C) Pollachi Coimbatore District.
Page Nos.5/6
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J., and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J., mk 12.06.2026 Page Nos.6/6