Madras High Court
V. Sankaran vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 12 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1997)1MLJ1
JUDGMENT K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 5th February, 1996 passed by the learned single judge, dismissing W.P. No. 3738 of 1986, in which the petitioner had sought for quashing the records in Mu.Mu.G. No. 73562/G7/85 dated 7.1.1986 passed by the 1st respondent. That was an order in an appeal preferred against the order imposing the punishment of withholding 3 increments with cumulative effect by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent in the appeal, upheld the order of the 2nd respondent, however reduced the penalty by withholding one increment, without cumulative effect. However, learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Appellate Authority has considered the case and has been liberal in reducing the penalty.
2. Before us, Shri Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has urged only one contention, viz., that the School Committee consisted of the Headmaster as per the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and he was the only one witness examined in that case in the course of the inquiry, and he was not only the complainant, but was also the witness examined in the inquiry and as such, he could not have sat as a member of the School Committee to determine the question as to whether the petitioner/appellant is quality of the charges.
3. This contention has not been urged before any of the Authorities, therefore on a special application filed in C.M.P. No. 8614 of 1996. Permission was sought for to raise this ground and we have allowed the appellant to raise, since it is a question of law, based on undisputed facts.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent does not dispute the fact that the Headmaster was also the complainant and was also examined as the only witness and he also sat along with the members of the School Committee and decided the case against the petitioner/appellant.
5. We need not dwell upon the question raised by learned senior Counsel, because the said question has been specifically considered by a Division Bench of this Court in The Group General Manager, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Thiruchirapalli and Ors. v. Henry Baskar (1995) I.L.R. 3 Mad. 944. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
Of course, the Group General Manager was the disciplinary authority. But the charge against the respondent was that the respondent along with other workers tried to assault the Group General Manager. If that be so, the Group General Manager was in the position of a victim, who could be one of the witnesses and a complainant in the proceeding. As we have already pointed out, it is one of the principles of natural justice that no person shall be a Judge in his own cause. It is also not in dispute that the Chairman of the company being the higher authority could have held the disciplinary proceeding.
6. It is, however, contended that the School Committee being the disciplinary authority and the Headmaster being one of the members of the School Committee, he had no option, but, to sit in the School Committee.
7. We may also point out here that in a case like this, where the other members of the School Committee can go on with the inquiry excluding the Headmaster, the doctrine of necessity cannot at all be applied. Therefore, the Headmaster should not have sit as a member of the School Committee to decide the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, having initiated the inquiry and examined himself as the witness. In such a case, the doctrine of necessity is also not applicable and it is so held in the very same decision referred to above - see paragraphs 19 and 20. Consequently, it follows that the entire proceedings get vitiated by reason of violation of the principle of natural justice. As a result thereof, the order passed in the appeal also falls to the ground.
8. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.2.1996 passed in W.P. No. 3738 of 1986 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The proceedings starting from the stage of consideration of the disciplinary proceedings by the School Committee are quashed. However, the records pertaining to the Disciplinary Committee upto the stage of recording of the evidence, are not disturbed. It is now open to the School Committee excluding the Headmaster, to consider the case afresh on the basis of the evidence on record. We also further direct that the Headmaster shall refrain from participating in the proceedings of the School Committee, when it considers the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner/appellant. The C.M.P. is also disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.