S.VAIDYANATHAN,J full order adultration case

W.P.No.8146 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.8706 of 2021

MRS.VALLIYAMMAL
W/O. THIRUMALAI DENVUR VILLAGE MELMALAYANUR TALUK VILLUPURAM DISTRICT. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT CHENNAI- 9

THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT VILLUPURAM.

THE HEADMASTER GOVT HIGHER S
ECONDARY, SCHOOL DEVANUR, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.

DESINGURAJA S/O. THIRUMALAI
DEVANUR VILLAGE, MELMALAYANUR TALUK VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.

W.P.No.8146 of 2021
Prayer
Directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to initiate Departmental and disciplinary proceedings against the 4th respondent based on the represenation dated 23.7.2020 who is presently working as a clerk in the 3rd Respondent School and complete the said enquiryin the manner to law and Award punishment to him by passing appropriate Final orders in the manner know to law.
W.M.P.No.8706 of 2021
Prayer
To Grant an order of interim directiion directing the respondents 1 to 2 to suspendthe 4th Respondent pending enquiry till such final orders are passed on the said enquiry pending disposal of the present Writ Petition.

S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.,

Mr.P.Raja, learned Government Advocate takes notice for R1 to R3. Notice to R4, returnable by 14.06.2021. Private Notice is also permitted.
2. The Writ Petition is filed, seeking for a direction to the Respondents 1 to 3 to initiate Departmental and disciplinary proceedings against the 4th Respondent based on the representation dated 23.07.2020, who is presently working as a Clerk in the 3rd Respondent School and complete the said enquiry in the manner known to law and Award punishment to him by passing appropriate final orders. Along with the Writ Petition, the petitioner has also filed a Miscellaneous Petition for an interim direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 to suspend the 4th Respondent, pending enquiry.

3. The minimum facts that are required for issuance of an interim order in this case are that the petitioner’s husband worked as Head Master and died on 01.06.1998 while in service, leaving behind him the petitioner, two sons and two daughters and on the basis of the assurance given by the 4th respondent that he would take care of the entire family, especially the petitioner / mother, other legalheirs had given no objection for providing public employment on compassionate ground to the 4th Respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the 4th Respondent, after joining duty as Clerk in the 3rd Respondent Office on 17.05.2013, left the petitioner at lurch, attacked her and also abused her in filthy language. In this regard, a Police Complaint was also lodged against him, which resulted in registration of an FIR in Crime No.450 of 2020 dated 05.06.2020. Aggrieved by the continuous act and torture by the 4th Respondent, the Petitioner is before this Court with the aforesaid main and interim prayer.

4. When I was dealing with an issue of compassionate appointment in the case of R.Rajeswari vs. The District Collector, Madurai and others [W.P.(MD) No.19942 of 2018] decided on 03.10.2018, it was held as follows:
“8….It is made clear that after consideration of appointment of the petitioner’s elder daughter, namely, Manimegalai on compassionate ground, 25% of the gross monthly income shall have to be directly paid to the petitioner / mother by way of NEFT or RTGS every month and the said gross income is subject to income tax deductions, so as to ensure that the petitioner has not been let down without any care.”
5. Admittedly, the 4th Respondent got the appointment on compassionate ground on the demise of his father, bypassing his elder sister, who was fully qualified and eligible to get appointment at that time, on the belief that he would provide all comfort / amenities to the petitioner / mother. Though the petitioner sought for the interim prayer of suspending the 4th Respondent, this Court cannot give such an interim direction, as it is for the Respondents 1 to 3 to decide after conducting a full-fledged enquiry. Therefore, I am of the view that the interim prayer sought for as such cannot be granted and the petitioner is entitled to the following interim order in the light of the judgment of this Court (cited supra):
i) The Petitioner is entitled to 25% of the gross monthly income of the 4th Respondent and the Respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that the said portion of the amount is deducted from the salary of the 4th Respondent and paid directly to the petitioner / mother by way of NEFT or RTGS every month, pending disposal of the Writ Petition;

ii) The entire gross income is subject to income tax deductions and the proportionate tax deduction will be made by R1 to R3, on the 25% amount payable to the petitioner and remit the same to the Income Tax Department.
6. Further, this Court has elaborately discussed the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 in a recent judgment in the case of R.Sasikala vs. The Inspector General of Registration, No.100, Santhom High Road, Pathinapakam, Chennai-600 028 and others [W.P.(MD) Nos.11674 of 2015, 6889, 13297 and 8330 of 2020] decided on 19.02.2021, and held as follows:
“20. This Court makes it very clear that those who are responsible to take care of the senior citizens leaves them in lurch shall be imprisoned in terms of Section 24 and imposition of fine is only secondary and the cases filed by Senior Citizens will have to be heard on a day to-day basis without adjourning it beyond seven working days. Even though the word used is “either” in Section 24 of the said Act, the imprisonment should be made mandatory. Even though the discretion is given to the Magistrates to try the offence and impose punishment, unless sword of Damocles is hanging on the youngsters, there will be lots of old age home mushrooming and solely the crime will be on the rise in the old age home.”
and the said judgment shall be taken note of, while proceeding with the criminal case registered against the 4th Respondent, as the petitioner has stated that her property has been grabbed by the 4th respondent. However, the said submission can be gone into only after appearance by the 4th Respondent.

7. It is made clear that Private Notice shall be despatched within three postal working days excluding today either through Speed Post or Registered Post and at the first instance, it is absolutely necessary to file the postal receipt into the Registry to show the despatch of private notice, within two working days from the date of despatch, without waiting for the fate of delivery. On the other hand, the receipt of acknowledgement card / returned cover is the second course of action for the purpose of filing a proof of service so as to hear the matter, after the service is complete and it has got nothing to do with the proof of despatch of private notice at the initial stage. The private notice shall be served by enclosing a copy of the affidavit and the prayer in the Writ Petition, so that as and when parties enter appearance, typeset can be served either on them or counsel representing them.

List this matter on 14.06.2021 for further adjudication of the matter.

30.03.2021
ar