V.Jones Prasanna Doss v. The Chief Educational Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and WMP No.43687 of 2025 V.Jones Prasanna Doss : Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirupattur District, Tirupattur.
2.The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Tirupattur, Tirupattur District.
3.The Correspondent, Concordia Higher Secondary School, Ambur 635 802, Tiruppur District.
: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders on the proposal submitted by the third respondent dated 12.09.2025 and to grant permission to the petitioner to go abroad Singapore from 20.10.2025 to 24.10.2025, in consideration of representation submitted by the petitioner dated 10.09.2025, forthwith, and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran Senior Counsel 1/7
for Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondents : Ms.Mythreye Chandru Special Government Pleader for R1 and R2
ORDER
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working as P.G. Assistant in Concordia Higher Secondary School, Ambur. The petitioner was issued with an order of suspension on 23.04.2024 by the third respondent citing various allegation. He challenged the said order of suspension before this Court in W.P.No.13647 of 2024. This Court allowed the same, by order dated 20.08.2024 quashing the order of suspension. Challenging the order passed by the writ court, a writ appeal in W.A.No.3079 of 2024 was filed by the third respondent management, wherein no interim stay has been granted. However, the Court permitted the third respondent management to conduct enquiry based on charge memo dated 23.04.2024 but restraint them from taking a final decision without Court's permission. While so, the third respondent found the charges unsubstantiated and proposed to drop them by stating that same will be placed before the Court in W.A.No.3079 of 2024 for final orders and as on date, the petitioner is not facing any enquiry or departmental action. While so, the petitioner 2/7
had applied for permission for 5 days' leave between 20.10.2025 and 24.10.2025 to travel to Singapore to attend family function and he had also sought for NOC. The third respondent had also forwarded the NOC to the second respondent on 12.09.2025. However, by reply dated 06.10.2025, the second respondent refused to consider the same citing pendency of the writ appeal and the earlier suspension proceedings. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as on date, no enquiry is pending against the petitioner and no disciplinary action has been taken against the petitioner so far and no criminal case is pending. The petitioner has sought for permission to travel for five days and he has also given an undertaking to return back to India after completing his travel. However, on account of the third respondent not furnishing details, the second respondent has delayed the process and if the petitioner is not granted permission, he will be put to untold hardships. Thereby, he seek that a direction may be issued to second respondent to grant NOC to the petitioner.
3. Mrs.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the learned Single Judge had quashed the 3/7
suspension order. The petitioner has also co-operated for enquiry and the enquiry has been closed stating that the charges have not been substantiated and as on date, no proceedings is pending against the petitioner. She would further submit that since the third respondent has not furnished the details sought for by the second respondent, the request of the petitioner is kept pending.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.
5. As on date, no disciplinary proceedings is pending against the petitioner and the charges against the petitioner have also been dropped stating that it has not been substantiated by materials.
6. This Court is of the opinion that right of travel is a constitutional guarantee. The petitioner as on date is not facing any charges or has not suffered any punishment and there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the respondents ought to have given NOC to the petitioner and the petitioner has sought for permission to travel for 5 days and he is also ready to give undertaking that he will return back to India and continue with 4/7
his duty.
7. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to grant NOC to the petitioner to travel to Singapore between 20.10.2025 and 24.10.2025. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the second respondent stating that he will return back to India and join duty on the next working day of return from Singapore.
8. With the above directions, the writ petitions stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15.10.2025 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order mrn Note: Issue order copy by 15.10.2025 To 1.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirupattur District, Tirupattur.
2.The District Educational Officer (Secondary), Tirupattur, 5/7
Tirupattur District.
3.The Correspondent, Concordia Higher Secondary School, Ambur 635 802, Tiruppur District.
6/7
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.
(mrn) 15.10.2025 7/7