Madras High Court
N.Mahadevan vs The Joint Director Of School Education on 1 November, 2017
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.11.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.23266 of 2008 and M.P.No.2 of 2008 N.Mahadevan .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai 600 006. 2.The Correspondent, Sri V.D.S.Jain Higher Secondary School, Tiruvannamalai 606 601 Tiruvannamalai District. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd Respondent regarding termination of Petitioner's service by proceedings No.001/c/06, dated 16.04.2007 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all back wages. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Selvarajan For Respondents : Mr.A.Rajaperumal (for R1) Additional Government Pleader Mr.A.E.Kalaiselvan (for R2) O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 2nd Respondent regarding termination of Petitioner's service by proceedings No.001/c/06, dated 16.04.2007 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all back wages.
2.The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Post Graduate Assistant (Chemistry) at Sri V.D.S. Jain Higher Secondary School, Tiruvannamalai. He further states that originally he joined into the service on 12.01.1987 as Post Graduate Assistant in the 2nd respondent School and he has put up 19 years of unblemished record of service.
3.It is further case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent School is a recognized private aided non-minority institution, which is governed by the Tamilnadu Recognized Private School (Regulation)Act, 1973. During January 2006, the 2nd respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension pending certain charges, thereafter, the charges were framed against the petitioner on 01.06.2006 and sought for explanation from the petitioner. As per the charge memo, three charges have been framed against the petitioner and all the charges were not based any valid evidence, but it were framed on the pretext to victimize the petitioner, since the petitioner made a complaint against the 2nd respondent in respect of increments of the Teachers to the Educational authorities and also on various occasions, the 2nd respondent insisted the petitioner to collect more money over and above the fees, for which the petitioner refused to do so and the 2nd respondent also insisted the petitioner to issue laboratory bill in excess of actual bill that too was denied by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent was initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
4.It is further case of the petitioner is that on several occasions, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to furnish the documents which were basis for the charges in order to submit the explanation, however with a malafide intention, the 2nd respondent has failed to furnish those documents and also failed to permit the petitioner to peruse the said documents, even knowing the real facts and circumstances of the charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.06.2006 by denying the said charges and in the explanation also, the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to furnish the documents.
5.It is further case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent without furnishing the requested documents, disciplinary proceeding was started and directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 14.07.2006 before the disciplinary committee. The petitioner was appeared before the said committee on the said date and during the inquiry, the petitioner was requested the committee to permit him to peruse the said documents, however, he has not permitted and the 2nd respondent has failed to give proper opportunity of explaining the petitioner's case and proceeded with the inquiry.
6.It is the further case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has not examined any witnesses and no opportunity was given to the petitioner for examine his witnesses and no proper opportunity was given by the 2nd respondent to prove the petitioner's innocence and the inquiry committee during inquiry without affording any opportunity mere asked some questions and completed the inquiry and found that the petitioner was guilty of the said charges levelled against him by the 2nd respondent. On 17.08.2006, the 2nd respondent sought for further explanation on the inquiry report and on 28.08.2006 the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent with an ulterior motive without considering his explanation and proposed to pass an order of termination of his service and final show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.09.2006 and on 06.10.2006 the petitioner submitted his explanation to the final show cause notice. The 2nd respondent with an ulterior motive and without even following due procedures on 16.04.2007 passed an order of terminating the petitioner's service retrospectively from 04.01.2006. Against the order of termination dated 16.04.2007, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973 read with Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Rules, 1974 on 09.05.2007 along with stay petition, the 1st respondent received the said Statutory Appeal as early as an year ago has failed to pass an order on the Appeal, even after lapse of one year is highly arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition has been filed before this Court with the above prayer.
7.The 1st respondent has filed the counter denying the allegations set out by the petitioner in the affidavit.
8.The 1st respondent stated that the writ petitioner Mr.N.Mahadevan was working as Post Graduate Assistant in Chemistry in Sri.V.D.S.Jain Higher Secondary School, Thiruvannamalai, but the 1st respondent denied that the petitioner rendered unblemished 19 years of service from the very beginning. The petitioner was giving sexual harassment to the +1 and +2 girl students in Chemistry Lab and class room in the class hours. The same complaint was received by the Management from the girl students many times. The Management advised and warned the petitioner for that offence, but the petitioner has not changed his character, attitude and continuously he was doing the same offence. Hence, the petitioner's service was not an unblemished one for the past 19 years. The 2nd respondent school is minority school, aided and recognized by the Government of Tamilnadu.
9.The 1st respondent further states that the petitioner was not a disciplined teacher. He was a Chemistry teacher and having power to provide the practical and internal mark. Taking advantage the above the petitioner was giving sexual harassment to the +1 and +2 girl students in the Chemistry Lab and in the Class Room at class hours. The victim girl student's have lodged the complaint before the Police Station. Later it was withdrawn by compromise between the said petitioner and the victim student's parents. Even though the management advised the petitioner to change his misbehaviour and character, but he was continuously giving sexual harassment to the girl students and the victim girl student's at a certain stage could not tolerate the petitioner's harassment and lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 02.12.2005 and 22.12.2005.
10.The 1st respondent further states that the School Managing Committee has enquired the +1 and +2 girl students regarding the complaint against the petitioner, the said enquiry clearly revealed that the petitioner's bad character and confirmed by the girl students. On that basis, the charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted. The petitioner has made a complaint against the management in respect of increment to the teachers to the Educational authorities is totally false and baseless. The management insisted the petitioner to collect the excess fees amounts from the students is totally false and there is no necessity to the management to collect the excess fees amount and the petitioner is not a competent person to collect the fees from the student and there is no necessity to the management to ask the petitioner to collect the excess fees. The averment contained in the writ petition that the management insisted the petitioner to issue Laboratory bill excess the actual bill is totally false. The petitioner has misleads this Court to get over from the punishment. On 01.06.2006 the management has framed the charges against the petitioner and sought for the explanation from the petitioner for the three charges. The management has given sufficient opportunity from the very beginning. The petitioner was threatening the victim girl students that if they say the incident to anybody, he would reduce the Chemistry practical mark and fail them in his subject and also threatened the management to destroy the school.
11.It is further stated by the 1st respondent that the charge against the petitioner is the grievous in nature and it will affect the future of the girl students. The victim girl students requested the management not to furnish the copy of their complaint. Hence, the management could not furnish the copy of the complaint to the petitioner to safeguard the life of the girl students and their future life. However, on 14.07.2006, at the time of enquiry the petitioner was allowed to peruse the documents. On 17.08.2006 the management has issued the show cause notice to the petitioner. For findings of the enquiry report, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 28.08.2006. The petitioner has not given acceptable explanation for the show cause notice on 06.10.2006 and submitted his explanation for final show cause notice. The managing committee has passed the order on 16.04.2007 terminating the petitioner from service by giving all opportunities and after careful consideration of the explanation given by the petitioner and all documents, the school managing committee has passed the resolution on 28.08.2006 to dismiss the petitioner from service from the date of suspension on 04.01.2006 as per the resolution of the school managing committee. The petitioner has been terminated from service on 16.04.2007 as the respondent school is being a minority institution. The charge against the petitioner have been proved and it is a grievous in nature.
12.It is further stated that the Government has issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.121 School Education (E1) Department, dated 17.05.2012 stating that major punishments such as dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement shall be given to the teacher provided in sexual abusement against students. The management has passed the final order after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and careful consideration of all merits and in accordance with law. The respondent school is a minority institution and the offence committed by the petitioner is a serious one. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is not at all maintainable, since there is no Appeal provisions for teachers working in the minority schools. In Tamilnadu Private School Regulation Act, 1973 Sections 21, 22 and 23 was struckdown by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4478 of 1974, dated 17.04.1975 and W.A.No.294 of 1975, dated 24.09.1976. Hence, the 1st respondent prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
13.The 2nd respondent has filed separate counter affidavit by accepting the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has given the reply in his counter what are all given by the 1st respondent. I do not see any variation in the counter affidavit filed by both the respondents.
14.The 2nd respondent states that admittedly the petitioner Mr.N.Mahadevan was working as Post Graduate Assistant (Chemistry) in the 2nd respondent school, but the 2nd respondent denied that the petitioner rendered 19 years of unblemished record of service from the very beginning.
15.The 2nd respondent also states that the petitioner was giving sexual harassment to the +1 and +2 girl students in Chemistry Lab and Class room in the class hours. For the sexual harassment, the 2nd respondent school Management has received the complaint from the girl students on many occasions and the 2nd respondent school Management advised and warned the petitioner not to do the said alleged harassment, but the petitioner has not changed his character, attitude and continuously he was doing the same offence. Therefore, his service was not an unblemished one for the past 19 years. Though, the averments that the 2nd respondent school is non-minority school, is totally false. The 2nd respondent school is a minority school. According to Article 30(i) the 2nd respondent school, is a minority school, aided and recognised by the Government of Tamil Nadu.
16.The 2nd respondent also states that the petitioner was not a disciplined teacher, since the petitioner was working as a Chemistry Teacher and having the power to provide the practical and internal mark. Taking advantage of the same, the petitioner was giving sexual harassment to the +1 and +2 girl students in the Chemistry Lab and in the Class room at class hours. Earlier occasion the victim girl student's giving the complaint before the Police Station, later on it was withdrawn by compromise between the petitioner and the victim student's parents. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent school Management has advised the petitioner many occasions to change his mis-behaviour and character, but even then he was continuously giving sexual harassment to the victim girl students, the victim girl student's at a certain stage could not tolerate the petitioner's harassment and lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 02.12.2005 and 22.12.2005.
17.The 2nd respondent further states that pursuant to the receipt of the complaint on the said dates on 02.12.2005 and 22.12.2005, the school Management committee has enquired the said victim, who are studying +1 and +2 courses and in the said enquiry, it was revealed the petitioner's bad character and confirmed by the girl students. On that basis, the charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted. But the 2nd respondent has totally denied the averments that the petitioner has made complaint against the Management in respect of increment to the teachers to the Educational authorities, which is totally false and baseless.
18.The 2nd respondent also states that the complaint was received from the students, the 2nd respondent school Management warned the petitioner for not doing the same thing in future. The 2nd respondent also denied the averments that the Management insisted the petitioner to collect the excess fees from the students is totally false and there is no necessity to the management to collect the excess fees amount from the students and the writ petitioner is not a competent person to collect the fees, since, the petitioner was no way connected to the school and there is no necessity to the Management to ask the petitioner to collect the excess fees. The 2nd respondent also denied the averments that the Management insisted the petitioner to issue laboratory bill excess the actual bill.
19.The 2nd respondent also states that for the above said allegations, the writ petitioner has not produced a single iota of evidence to prove his false allegation against the 2nd respondent school Management and the writ petitioner misleads this Hon'ble Court to get over from the punishment. On 01.06.2006, the Management has framed the charges against the petitioner and sought the explanation from the petitioner for the 3 charges. The Management has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner from the very beginning, the petitioner was threatening the victim girl students that if they disclosed the incident to anybody, he reduced the Chemistry practical mark and failed them in his subject and also threatened the school Management that he was destroyed the school.
20.The 2nd respondent also states that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner is the grievous in nature and it will affect the future of the girl students. The victim girls students also requested the Management not to furnish the copy of their complaint. Therefore, the Management could not furnish the copy of the complaint to the petitioner to safeguard the future of the girl students. However, on 14.07.2006 at the time of enquiry the petitioner was allowed to peruse the documents. Therefore, the 2nd respondent school also given all opportunities to the petitioner to defend himself. The averments that the disciplinary committee has not given proper opportunity and even permitted the petitioner to peruse the documents are totally false. The petitioner once again trying to harass the girl students by crosses examining them. The Management has given sufficient time and opportunity to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also states that the petitioner has threatened the victim girl students to withdraw the complaint given against the petitioner.
21.The 2nd respondent also states that the Management of the school has issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 17.08.2006. For the findings of the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.08.2006, but he has not given any acceptable explanation for the show cause notice dated 06.10.2006. Therefore, the Management committee has passed the order on 16.04.2007 terminating the petitioner from service by giving all opportunities and after careful consideration of the explanation given by the petitioner and all documents. The school Management committee has passed the resolution on 28.08.2006 to dismiss the petitioner from service from the date of suspension on 04.01.2006 as per the resolution of the school Management committee.
22.The 2nd respondent also states that after giving all the opportunities to the petitioner since the 2nd respondent school is being a minority institution constituted under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and the charges against the petitioner have been proved and it is grievous in nature and the same was proved in the enquiry. Therefore, he was terminated from service on 16.04.2007. Since the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities at the time of disciplinary proceedings, but, however the petitioner has refused to peruse the documents, after giving all the opportunities in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent passed the present impugned order dated 16.04.2007 by terminating the petitioner from service which punishment is valid in accordance with law and there is no violation or illegality. Therefore, the 2nd respondent states that the order of termination punishing the petitioner which is valid one, since by giving all the opportunities by following the natural justice, the petitioner was terminated from the service. Hence, the 2nd respondent has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
23.I heard Mr.J.Selvarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Rajaperumal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.A.E.Kalaiselvan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire records.
24.It is the case of the writ petitioner is that he was working as Post Graduate Assistant Teacher (Chemistry) in the 2nd respondent school and originally he joined in the school on 12.01.1987 and he has got 19 years of unblemished record of service in the 2nd respondent school.
25.It is the case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent school is a recognized private aided non-minority institution governed by the Government of Tamilnadu Recognized Private School (Regulation) Act, 1973. But the 2nd respondent states that the 2nd respondent school is a minority institution and the Government has declared that as per Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the 2nd respondent has declared as the minority school. If the 2nd respondent school is non-minority institution, then the petitioner ought to have go before the Appellate authority against the order of termination dated 16.04.2007. But as per the version of the 2nd respondent school, the 2nd respondent school is a minority institution. Therefore, the petitioner is having right only to approach this Court by way of writ petition. When the 2nd respondent school is a minority institution declared by the Government of Tamilnadu under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Against the order of punishment, the petitioner has approached this Court only by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
26.This was upheld by this Court in a case of Murugesan v. The Manager, R.C.Schools, Bishop of Tuticorin, Tuticorin Diocese, Bishop's House, Tuticorin and others reported in 2006 (1) CTC 263. Therefore, as per the orders of this Court cited supra, this writ petition is maintainable before this Court.
27.It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was given sexual harassment to the +1 and +2 students in the Chemistry lab and Class room in the class hours. Therefore, a charge memo was issued on 01.06.2006 by stating the three charges as follows:
Fw;wr;rhl;L?1 KJfiy ntjpapay; Mrphpauhf gzpg[hpa[k; jpU/vd;/kfhnjtd; mth;fs; ghlntisapy; tFg;giwapYk; Ma;t[f;Tlj;jpYk; 11 kw;Wk; 12 Mk; tFg;g[ khztpfSf;F bjhlh;e;J ghypay; bjhy;iyfs; bfhLj;Jte;jJ. khztpfshhy; btspapy; brhy;y Koahj fPH;j;jukhd mstpy; ghypay; bjhy;iyfs; bfhLj;J te;jJ elj;ij tpjpKiwfspd; go Fw;wkhFk;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L?2 jpU/vd;/kfhnjtd;. KJfiy ntjpapy; Mrphpah; mth;fs; tFg;g[ ghlntisapy; tFg;gisapYk; Ma;t[f;Tlj;jpYk; 11 kw;Wk; 12 Mk; tFg;g[ khztpfSf;F bjhlh;e;J ghypay; bjhy;iyfs; bfhLj;Jte;jJld; mij khztpfs; btspapy; brhd;dhy; bra;Kiw kjpg;bgz;fs; Fiwj;J nghl;L bra;Kiwj;njh;tpy; njh;r;rpailahjthW Mf;fptpLntd; vd;W bjhlh;e;J kpul;o te;jJ elj;ij tpjpKiwfspd; go Fw;wkhFk;/ Fw;wr;rhl;L?3 jpU/vd;/kfhnjtd;. KJfiy ntjpapay; Mrphpah; mth;fs; tFg;g[ ghlntisapy; tFg;giwapYk; Ma;t[f;Tlj;jpYk; 11 kw;Wk; 12 Mk; tFg;g[ khztpfSf;F bjhlh;e;J ghypay; bjhy;iyfs; bfhLj;Jte;jjhy; mij bghWf;f Koahj khztpfs; gs;sp eph;thfj;jpw;F vGj;J K:ykhf g[fhh;fs; bfhLj;jdh;/ mjd; mog;gilapy; j';fis tprhhpf;Fk; bghGJ tprhuizf;FGtpd; Kd;ghfnt gs;spia xHpj;Jfl;otpLntd; vd;Wk; vd;id fz;oj;jhy; khtl;l fhty; fz;fhzpg;ghsUf;F fojk; vGjp itj;Jtpl;L tpc&k; Foj;Jtpl;L jw;bfhiy bra;J bfhs;ntd; vd;Wk; kpul;oaJk; gs;spapd; elj;ij tpjpKiwfspd; go Fw;wkhFk;/
28.As per the charge memo, the petitioner was directed to give his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the above charges. On receipt of the above charge memo, the petitioner by his letter dated 12.06.2006 giving reply to the 2nd respondent school Management stating that the complaint given by the petitioner is totally false, since he has put up 19 years of unblemished service in the 2nd respondent school and the writ petitioner also sought for the complaint copy given by the victim girls and their parents which enabling to give a proper reply for the above charges.
29.On 03.07.2006 the 2nd respondent in his letter stating that for the charge memo dated 01.06.2006, the petitioner has given a reply on 11.06.2006 which was not satisfied. Therefore, as per the decision of the school committee dated 21.06.2006, the enquiry was conducted in front of the Correspondent and the school committee on 14.07.2006 at 11.00 a.m. and therefore, the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to appear on that day. Again on 12.07.2006 the 2nd respondent states that the writ petitioner's letter dated 10.07.2006, if the petitioner has appeared before the enquiry, the copy of the complaint given by the victim girls and their parents would be given to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to appear on 14.07.2006 in the enquiry.
30.The petitioner also states that pursuant to the letter dated 12.07.2006 stating that if the writ petitioner appeared in person in the enquiry on 14.07.2006, the copy of the complaint given by the victim girl students and their parents would be served on the petitioner. Therefore, on 14.07.2006 fixed for the enquiry by the 2nd respondent, this writ petitioner is appeared as per the letter dated 12.07.2006 and agree to supply of the complaint copy given by the victim girl students and their parents and he request for the copy and thereafter conduct the enquiry.
31.All in sudden on 17.08.2006 the 2nd respondent has issued the enquiry letter along with the enquiry report by directing to give his reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the enquiry report. As per the enquiry report given to the petitioner by the very same Correspondent of the 2nd respondent school, all the 3 charges were proved.
32.On receipt of the letter dated 17.08.2006 along with the enquiry report, the petitioner has given a reply on 28.08.2006 by stating that though he received the enquiry report along with the letter and he stated that no complaint copy was served on the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted by producing the victim girls and he has also not permitted to cross examine the alleged victim girls who have given complaint against the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the very enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent school committee management is totally biased. Therefore, he requested the 2nd respondent to pay the subsistence allowance from 04.01.2006 which was still pending. Thereafter, on 12.09.2006, the 2nd respondent again sent the show cause notice directing the petitioner to give explanation why the order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on the petitioner and directed to give reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 12.09.2006. For the letter dated 12.09.2006, the petitioner has given a reply dated 05.10.2006 stating that though the petitioner was appreciated by the school authorities for the 100% result given by the petitioner, but due to the false complaint was given against the petitioner, though for the past 19 years he has given more marks to all the students without any vengeance against the student as alleged by the 2nd respondent school. Therefore, he requested the 2nd respondent to drop the proceedings and permitting him to continue his service. But ignoring all these, the 2nd respondent has passed the present impugned order dated 16.04.2007 by terminating the petitioner from his service on 04.01.2006 i.e. the order of suspension passed against this petitioner.
33.The 2nd respondent has totally failure all in his part by passing the punishment order against the petitioner by terminating his service with retrospective effect from 04.01.2006. The 2nd respondent has produced three judgments passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1) (1997) 6 SCC 241 (Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others) (2) (1999) 1 SCC 759 (Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K.Chopra) (3) 2006 (1) CTC 263 (Murugesan v. The Manager, R.C.Schools, Bishop of Tuticorin, Tuticorin Diocese, Bishop's House, Tuticorin and others) All the three judgments produced by the 2nd respondent, it is no where stated that without giving a copies of the complaints and without examining the victim girls and without giving opportunity to the delinquent for cross examination of the complainants, the order of punishment can be passed. Therefore, the Judgments are not relevant to this case on hand.
34.It is great shock to this Court that when the charges were levelled against the writ petitioner by stating that he has misbehaved and giving sexual harassment to the girl students and number of complaints were received by the 2nd respondent school Management and also complaint given to the Police Station which are all to be examined by giving fair opportunity to the writ petitioner for cross examining the victim girls.
35.It is made clear that the enquiry also conducted by the very same Correspondent who is the party in passing the termination order dated 16.04.2007 against this writ petitioner. This Court shown his anxious activities of the school that because of the school declared as minority institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be a license to act against the law of land and principles of natural justice.
36.Admittedly in this case, it was alleged that the girl students, who alleged to given sexual harassment by this petitioner was not at all examined by the Management, since it was the reason given by the 2nd respondent school Management that for the welfare and future of the victim girl students, the copy of the complaints were not given to the petitioner and the victim girls are also not examined in the enquiry. Thus being the case, then how the 2nd respondent has passed the punishment order without any material evidence of the complaints or without examination of the victim girls or victim girls parents, because of the only reason that the 2nd respondent school is a minority institution and they have every right to pass any orders without following natural justice. This order of termination which is totally spoiled the life of the petitioner.
37.The 2nd respondent himself admitted that the petitioner was put up 19 years of service in the 2nd respondent school, but for the entire service period there is no allegations set out against this writ petitioner about his inefficiency and in fact the petitioner was appreciated by the 2nd respondent school Management for 100% result in his Chemistry subject.
38.No person should be convicted for his commitment of criminal offence, without giving fair opportunity to defend his case, but in this case, it is totally lack on the part of the 2nd respondent. When the enquiry itself was conducted by the 2nd respondent school Correspondent how he himself has passed the present impugned order of termination dated 16.04.2007.
39.It is my absolute view that the 2nd respondent school without conducting proper enquiry, the order of termination dated 16.04.2007 was passed, which is totally against the law and natural justice. Therefore, the writ petitioner has make out the case before this Court and this Court consider the arguments made by the writ petitioner and on perusal of the entire records which clearly shows that the 2nd respondent school has conducted the improper enquiry and passed the illegal order of termination dated 16.04.2007 against this petitioner, who put up 19 years of unblemished record of service in the 2nd respondent school and hence this Court warranting interference in the orders passed by the 2nd respondent school dated 16.04.2007. Accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.
40.In the result:
(a) this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order in Proceedings No.001/c/06, dated 16.04.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent;
(b) the 2nd respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and pay back all the service and monetary benefits from 04.01.2006 to the petitioner;
(c) the said exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.11.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 08.12.2017 vs Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order To The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), College Road, Chennai 600 006.
M.V.MURALIDARAN. J.
vs W.P.No.23266 of 2008 and M.P.No.2 of 2008 01.11.2017