Banumathi, v. The District Educational

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.09.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.19864 of 2018 Banumathi ...

Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Educational Officer, O/o the District Educational Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

2.The Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Union, Kallikudi, Thirumangalam Education District, Madurai District.

...

Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certioari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of minor punishment of censure in Na.Ka.No.390/A1/2018, dated 23.08.2018 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Lous For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathi, Spl.G.P.

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with the present Writ petition to issue a Writ of Certioari to quash the impugned order of minor punishment of censure in Na.Ka.No.390/A1/2018, dated 23.08.2018 on the file of the second respondent.

2.Mrs.S.Srimathi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this Writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3.The only apprehension of the petitioner is that he has been warned in the impugned order dated 23.08.2018 and hence, the said order would form part of the service record and that it may have adverse implication when his case would be considered for further promotion in future.

4.In this case, the petitioner has been issued with charge memo dated 03.05.2012 and for which, he has submitted his explanation. On going through the explanation as well as the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner has been warned and that he should be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

careful and no similar incident would be occurred in future. Such observation in the impugned order would not be construed as a punishment at all. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner cannot be accepted as the observation in the impugned order is only a warning. Further, the petitioner has been let off for the said warning.

5.With the above observation, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To 1.The District Educational Officer, O/o the District Educational Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.

2.The Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Union, Kallikudi, Thirumangalam Education District, Madurai District.

+1 CC To MR.S.LOUIS, Advocate SR. NO. 84721 +1 CC TO The Special Government Pleader SR.NO. 84728 W.P.(MD)No.19864 of 2018 17.09.2018 NBJ TR/RP/SAR-IV(02.11.2018)2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/