V.Shanthi vs The State of Tamil Nadu,

Court
Madras High Court

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
CNR:{HCMD011466152025}
AND
WMP(MD) NO. 22836 OF 2025
V.Shanthi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School
Education, Fort.St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
(R1 is amended vide court order dated 12.11.2025
in WMP(MD)No.23329 of 2025 in
WP(MD)No.29526 of 2025)
2. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
4. The District Educational Officer
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
5. The Correspondent
Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja,
Girls Higher Secondary School,
Rajapalayam - 626 117, Virudhunagar District.
6. A.K.D.Krishnama Raju
The Correspondent,
Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharma Raja
Girls Higher Secondary School,
Rajapalayam - 626 117,
Virudhunagar District.
__________
Page  1  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
7. The Headmistress
Sri Rao Bahadur A.K.D.Dharma Raja
Girls Higher Secondary School,
Rajapalayam - 626 117,
Virudhunagar District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 5th
respondent School dated 07.10.2025 dismissing the petitioner from
service as BT Assistant (Maths), quash the same as illegal and further
direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in her service as
BT Assistant (Maths) in the 5th respondent school with salary, arrears of
salary and all other consequential benefits.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, senior counsel
for Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar
for M/s. Isaac Chambers
For Respondent(s) : Mrs.Porkodi Karnan
Special Government Pleader
for R1 to R4
Mr.A.Sivaji for R5 to R7
ORDER
The petitioner was working as a B.T. Assistant in the fifth respondent
school. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the fifth respondent
school. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the
present Writ Petition on the following grounds:
__________
Page  2  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
(i) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Headmaster, who is
not the employer of the petitioner. Therefore, the very initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings is without jurisdiction.
(ii) The petitioner was dismissed from service without issuing any charge
memo, without conducting a proper enquiry and without providing
sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself. The order of
dismissal was passed merely on the basis of complaints allegedly made
by certain parents.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a
few parents had allegedly lodged complaints stating that the petitioner
had abused the students. Based on the said complaints, show-cause
notices dated 14.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 were issued to the petitioner by
the Headmaster. However, copies of the complaints were not furnished to
the petitioner. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by a local advocate,
and the enquiry was also concluded on the same day. According to the
learned Senior Counsel, since the enquiry was conducted by an advocate,
the petitioner had also sought permission to avail herself of legal
assistance to defend herself in the disciplinary proceedings. However, the
__________
Page  3  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
said request was denied. The enquiry report dated 29.09.2025 was
furnished to the petitioner on 02.10.2025, along with a bunch of
documents, and the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation.
However, the documents relied upon by the management and enclosed
along with the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner
either during the course of the enquiry or prior to the commencement of
the enquiry. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the
entire enquiry proceedings had been conducted in a biased manner.
3. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that, challenging the
order of suspension dated 18.07.2025, the petitioner had filed a Writ
Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.25523 of 2025. In the said
Writ Petition, this Court had ordered notice to the respondents and posted
the matter for further hearing on 08.10.2025. While the said Writ Petition
was pending consideration, the enquiry was conducted in a hurried
manner on 29.09.2025. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice was
issued on 02.10.2025, and the order of punishment was passed on
07.10.2025, evidently with a view to rendering the Writ Petition already
filed by the petitioner infructuous.
__________
Page  4  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
1 to 4 submits that the order of punishment had not been approved by the
Department and that the fourth respondent/District Educational Officer,
Sivakasi, had rejected the request made by the fifth respondent
management seeking approval of the order of punishment.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth to seventh respondents
submits that, based on certain complaints received by the management,
an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and, pursuant to the said
enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions made on either side
and perused the materials placed on record.
7. The petitioner has made out a case that the disciplinary proceedings
were not initiated by the fifth respondent management but were initiated
by the Headmaster, who did not have the authority to initiate such
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It is further seen that,
though an enquiry was conducted, no charge memo was issued to the
petitioner. However, along with the enquiry report, it appears that 125
documents had been enclosed, and the petitioner was called upon to
__________
Page  5  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
submit her explanation. Admittedly, these documents had not been
furnished to the petitioner either during the course of the enquiry or prior
thereto. The enquiry was also conducted by engaging a local advocate as
the Enquiry Officer. When the management had chosen to appoint an
advocate to conduct the enquiry, in all fairness, the petitioner ought to
have been permitted to engage the services of a counsel of her choice to
defend herself in the disciplinary proceedings. However, the same was
also denied to the petitioner.
8. Moreover, the fourth respondent/District Educational Officer, Sivakasi,
who is the competent authority to approve the order of punishment, has
not approved the same and has, in fact, rejected the request made by the
management seeking approval of the order of punishment.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner has made out a case warranting
interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, and
the impugned order of punishment dated 07.10.2025 is set aside.
Consequently, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The
fourth respondent/District Educational Officer, Sivakasi, is directed to
identify an alternative place and accommodate the petitioner in any
__________
Page  6  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
available surplus post. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mbi
__________
Page  7  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
To
1. The Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort.St.George,
Chennai - 600 009
2. The Director of School Education
College Road, Chennai - 600 006
3. The Chief Educational Officer
Virudhunagar
Virudhunagar District
4. The District Educational Officer
Sivakasi
Virudhunagar District
__________
Page  8  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )

WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
B.PUGALENDHI J.
mbi
WP(MD) No. 29526 of 2025
AND
WMP(MD) NO. 22836 OF 2025
30-10-2026
__________
Page  9  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 01:10:01 pm )