Madras High Court
David Baskara Doss vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 24 November, 2020
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
W.P.No.8247 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.11.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
W.P.No.8247 of 2007
David Baskara Doss ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamilnadu
Rep. by its Secretary,
Education Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9
2. The Director of Matriculation Schools,
Chennai - 6
3. Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao
Matriculation Higher Secondary School.
Rep. by its Correspondent,
57-B, Thirumalaipillari Road,
T. Nagar, Chennai – 17. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for
the records relating to the impugned letter No.12149/X2/2006-9 dated
17.07.06 of the first respondent and order in Mu.Mu.No.2224/E6/2002
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/28
W.P.No.8247 of 2007
dated 23.01.2003 of the second respondent and consequently direct the
third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages
continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.V. Ajay Khose
For Respondents 1 &2 : Mr.P. Chinnadurai
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent 3 : Mr. K. Sathish
For S. Silambanan Associates.
******
ORDER
This writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus after calling for the records relating to the impugned letter No.12149/X2/2006-9 dated 17.07.06 of the first respondent and order in Mu.Mu.No.2224/E6/2002 dated 23.01.2003 of the second respondent and consequently direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
2. The Factual Matrix of the case is as follows:-
(a) The petitioner was working as a Post Graduate Teacher in http://www.judis.nic.in 2/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 Tamil in the Third respondent viz., Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School, from 21.01.1976 and was terminated on 13.12.2000 based on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. At the time the petitioner was in service, the third respondent issued charge memos dated 30.05.2000, 14.06.2000, 29.06.2000, 21.07.2000 and 24.07.2000 levelling the following allegations against the petitioner.:
(i) In the memo dated 30.05.2000, the petitioner was charged for misbehaving with the photographer and attempting a boisterous criminal attack on him on 09.03.2000 and for having threatened Mrs.Beryl Concesso on many occasions on account of which he was registered the case in Police Station.
(ii) In the memo dated 14.06.2000, he was levelled allegation for using unparliamentary and impolite words in his explanation letter dated 13.06.2000 for the memo dated 30.05.2000
(iii) In the memo dated 29.06.2000 and 21.07.2000, he was levelled allegation for being in a tea stall with other teachers during working hours and talking to others in the auditorium without following the procedure on a specific duty assigned by the School Management http://www.judis.nic.in 3/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 during the Founder's day celebration which amounted to rampant indiscipline respectively.
(iv) In the memo dated 24.07.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension as the explanation given by him was neither convincing nor satisfactory to the School Management.
(b) The petitioner made explanation by his letter dated 13.06.2000, 20.06.2000, 01.07.2000 and 24.07.2000 respectively denying all the allegations stated in those memos. After receiving his explanation through communications, the third respondent conducted the enquiry by appointing Enquiry officer. After enquiry proceedings completed, the School management issued show cause notice dated 30.10.2020 to the petitioner for his termination and finally passed the dismissal order dated 13.12.2000 against the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry officer. Challenging the aforesaid dismissal order, an appeal was preferred before the Second respondent which was rejected on 23.01.2003 and as against which, an appeal before the First respondent was filed which also was rejected on 17.07.2006. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders. http://www.judis.nic.in 4/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the Headmaster Mr.David Packinathan retired on 31.05.1999, without promoting the eligible senior teachers having worked in the School, the School management recruited the person directly from outside to fill up the vacancy of Principal and the said post was not filled as per the provisions of the Tamilnadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules thereunder even though the petitioner and other teachers were eligible for the said post. Aggrieved by the direct recruitment for the post of the Principal, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 30.10.1999 to the Correspondent of the School to consider him for the said post and also preferred an appeal dated 03.11.1999 to the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) under Section 15(4A) of the Tamilnadu Recognised Private School Rules. Being irritated on the petitioner's rightful claim for the post of Principal and activities against the School management, in order to take revenge, the School management has foisted the aforesaid baseless allegations and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. However, the petitioner attended the enquiry set up by the School Management which commenced on 15.09.2000 and gave a letter to the Enquiry Officer to appoint an advocate to put forth his http://www.judis.nic.in 5/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 defence. The Enquiry was adjourned to 20.09.2000 to consider the request of the petitioner. On 20.09.2000, he was declined to appoint an advocate. On the same day, the School Management produced 22 documents and gave a list of five witnesses to the petitioner. On that day, since lawyer's assistance was declined, the petitioner requested to have assistance of Mr. Asraf Ali, a teacher of the School. It was also rejected on the ground that he was dismissed and was not aware of the events led to the issuance of memos to the petitioner and hence he could not be permitted to assist on the side of the petitioner. At this juncture, the enquiry was further adjourned to 26.09.2000. On 26.09.2000, the enquiry began at 9.00 a.m. On that day, the petitioner gave letters to the enquiry officer to reconsider his request to have the assistance of either lawyer or his colleague Mr.Asraf Ali. This request was rejected by the Enquiry officer. Thereafter, the Management examined Mrs.Beryl Concesso as their witness and the petitioner cross examined her. The enquiry went on continuously for 4 and ½ hours without any break from 9 am to 1.30 pm. The Enquiry officer was proceeding with the enquiry without break for lunch. In this circumstance, the petitioner requested the enquiry officer to adjourn the enquiry to some other date after the Dasara Vacation pointing http://www.judis.nic.in 6/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 out that as he was a diabetic patient, he could not withstand the enquiry continuously without even lunch break. Further, the petitioner requested the enquiry officer to continue the enquiry on another day after Dasara vacation on the following ground that:
(i) The petitioner was to be presented an assignment papers in the University of Madras on 27.09.2000 and 28.09.2000.
(ii) He wanted to visit his Mother-in-Law suffering from sick in his native place during the vacation period.
(iii) and it was a vacation time, the petitioner could not bring on his side witness to disprove the allegation.
Without considering the above request made by the petitioner, the enquiry officer rejected the same and continued the enquiry and completed on that day itself. The ex-parte enquiry was conducted without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his defence. Based on the ex-parte enquiry report which was conducted in a biased manner, submitted by the Enquiry officer, the School management issued show cause notice dated 30.10.2000 to the petitioner seeking for his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner gave his reply letter dated 08.11.2000 and 25.11.2000, requesting the School Management to http://www.judis.nic.in 7/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 reopen the enquiry and to give sufficient opportunity to disprove the allegation. The School Management turned down the fair request and just demand of the petitioner and issued dismissal order on 13.02.2000 to the petitioner. On the basis of findings of the ex-parte enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed without any basis which is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. Challenging the aforesaid dismissal order, an appeal dated 28.01.2003 was preferred before the Second respondent which was rejected on 23.01.2003 and as against which, an appeal before the First respondent was filed which also was rejected on 17.07.2006 affirming the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent without proper perusal of the record and without application of mind. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside those orders and to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages continuity of service and other attendant benefits.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The enquiry officer appointed by the 3rd respondent was the http://www.judis.nic.in 8/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 Headmistress working in the Government aided school, ie. the Madras Seva Sadan Higher Secondary School, Chetpet, and not a staff of the third respondent school. Hence, there is no chance to conduct the enquiry in a biased manner. It is to be noted that the final enquiry was conducted on 26.09.2000 after two adjournments as requested by the petitioner. ie. First hearing was scheduled on 15.09.2000 and it was adjourned to 20.06.2000 and thereafter adjourned to 26.09.2000 at the request of the petitioner. The petitioner was sent a notice giving intimation to attend the enquiry scheduled on 26.09.2000 without fail, failing which, the enquiry will be conducted in the absence of the petitioner. While the petitioner was attending on the day of final hearing, during the lunch break, the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry after lunch. But, he did not appear before the enquiry officer after attending the forenoon session enquiry wherein his request of further adjournment on the ground of his health and other reasons was denied. It shows very clearly the motive of the petitioner that the petitioner wanted to protract the disciplinary proceedings. Without any option, the enquiry after lunch was conducted in the absence of the petitioner by examining other witnesses and enquiry was completed on the same day. Upon completion http://www.judis.nic.in 9/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted to the School Management. Accordingly, the Governing Body of the Meeting held on 19.10.2000 duly passed a minutes. In pursuant to the minutes passed by the Governing body, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.10.2000 seeking for his explanation by one week. However, the petitioner made a request by letter dated 08.11.2000 for perusing the enquiry report before submitting his reply and seeking for rescinding the enquiry held and reopen the enquiry. Accordingly, the School Management by its letter dated 15.11.2000 extended the time to submit his reply by 27.11.2000 denying his request for fresh enquiry again to begin. But, the petitioner gave a representation dated 25.11.2000 accusing the Management in a deliberate attempt to get over the show cause notice and the enquiry conducted for disciplinary action and in the letter, no proper explanation was submitted for the charges levelled against him. Hence, finally, the School management committee thoroughly examined the entire documents, enquiry proceedings, enquiry report and explanation and thereafter, the School management passed the dismissal order dated 13.02.2000.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the Management representative was not a lawyer or a legally trained person, the request of the petitioner for assistance of a lawyer in the enquiry was declined by the Enquiry officer who was also not a lawyer. The petitioner was dismissed from service by observing the principles of natural justice in the enquiry. Hence, it cannot be said that the Management predetermined to dismiss the petitioner from service and conducted a farce enquiry. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is not right in contending that since School management had representative of its choice, the petitioner should have been given an assistant to assist him as per his choice. ie. an advocate though the rules do not provide for assistance of an advocate. Further, the petitioner requested to have the assistance of one Mr.Ashraf Ali who was not a staff or teacher of the school during the enquiry but was a dismissed employee. Hence, the request of the petitioner had not been accepted by the Enquiry officer. However, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry accepting the same and did not make any issue or grievance regarding the same at the relevant point of time. The petitioner himself has accepted that the management produced http://www.judis.nic.in 11/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 22 documents and gave a list of 5 witnesses. Hence, it cannot be said that principle of natural justice was violated since he was not entitled for assistance of an advocate and Mr. Ashraf Ali.
6. It was further contended by the counsel for the respondent that while the petitioner participated in the enquiry and also cross examined the witnesses, it is not correct to state that enquiry was a mere formality and the petitioner was deliberately set ex-parte due to the victimizing attitude of the School Management. It is not true that the enquiry was conducted without giving lunch break whereas the enquiry officer who was a old lady and the other witnesses etc. cannot attend in the enquiry without even having their lunch. In fact, the petitioner and others who were attending the enquiry were permitted to have lunch and asked to attend the enquiry after lunch. Though others turned up for the enquiry, the petitioner alone did not return to attend the enquiry because the evidence of the witnesses was not favour to the petitioner during the cross examination. Hence, the plea made by the petitioner based on this is false and an afterthought made just to invoke the sympathy of this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007
7. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that a mere perusal of the enquiry proceedings would show that there was no pressure as alleged by the petitioner that the enquiry went on continuously for 4 and 1/2 hours in which he participated. But, the petitioner only cross examined one witness Mrs.Beryl Concesc which did not take very long time and deserted the enquiry when other witnesses were examined. Under this circumstance, the petitioner cannot claim that the enquiry was conducted for 4 and 1/2 hours without any break. Having mind to protract the enquiry, the petitioner sought for further adjournment of the enquiry after Dasara vacation. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard and perused the records.
9. The issue regarding a delinquent employee needs to be represented by a legal practitioner in the domestic enquiry proceedings has been a subject of debate in many decisions and the law has been fairly settled, as under:
(i) The delinquent employee has no absolute right to demand http://www.judis.nic.in 13/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 representation through a legal practitioner in the domestic enquiry proceedings, more so, in the absence of any such specific provision in the Standing orders/Service Regulations under which the delinquent employee is governed.
(ii) However, it is also a settled proposition of law that mere absence of such provision in the Standing Orders/Service Regulations does not give absolute right to the employer/Disciplinary Authority to refuse in every case, the request of the delinquent employee to be represented by a legal practitioner.
(iii) Therefore, in the absence of a specific provision to permit the delinquent employee to engage a lawyer, the employer/Disciplinary Authority is required to take into consideration the following factors, before taking a decision in the matter:
• What is the nature of the charge under the enquiry? Is it such a complicated charge that the delinquent employee cannot defend himself effectively without the assistance of an advocate, regard being to his education, experience, etc?
• What is the nature of witnesses/documents that would be http://www.judis.nic.in 14/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 produced on behalf of the management? Whether any special expertise would be required to cross-examine the management witness or to assess the documents? • What is the background of the presenting officer? Is he a legal practitioner or legally trained person? • Whether refusal to grant permission would put the delinquent employee comparatively in a disadvantageous position, causing prejudice to him?
The above settled law is explained in the following Judicial observations:
The Supreme Court in the case of Board of Trustees Vs.Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 109 observed in the context of an enquiry held against an employee of Port Trust in which the Port Trust was represented by legally trained persons. The Port Trust had declined to permit the workmen to engage a legal practitioner on the ground that the Standing Orders did not provide for it. The Supreme Court held that:
(a) The denial of benefit of the assistance of a legal practitioner in the context of the facts resulted in denial of a fair hearing to the workmen; and that the absence of a provision to that effect in the standing Orders was not a http://www.judis.nic.in 15/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 justification for upholding the enquiry which was conducted, after denying the workmen the assistance of a legal practitioner, though the management was represented by legally trained person.
(b) The seriousness of the charges, type of evidence, complexity of issues that may arise in the course of enquiry are some of the factors to be considered for refusing or allowing legal assistance to the delinquent employee during the domestic enquiry. Further, if the management is represented by a legally trained person and the delinquent employee is pitted against such legally trained person as to defend himself, refusal of similar opportunity to the delinquent employee amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, ie., affording a reasonable opportunity.
The Supreme Court further held as follows:
“9. We are concerned ourselves in this case with a narrow question whether where in such a disciplinary enquiry by a domestic tribunal, the employer appoints Presenting-cum-Prosecuting Officer to represent the employer by persons who are legally trained, the delinquent employee, if he seeks permission to appear and defend himself by a legal practitioner, a denial of such a request would vitiate the enquiry on the ground that the delinquent employee had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, thereby vitiating one of the essential http://www.judis.nic.in 16/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 principles of natural justice".
When the matter again came up for the consideration of a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, following its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court held in the case of Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Vs.Ram Naresh Tripathi, reported in 1993, I LLJ 907;
(a) The right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statute, rules, regulations or Standing Orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirement of the rule of natural justice insofar as the delinquent's right of hearing is concerned, cannot and does not extend a right to be represented through counsel or agent.
(b) A delinquent employee appearing before a (domestic) Tribunal may feel that the right to representation is implied in the large entitlement of a fair hearing based on other rule of natural justice. He may, therefore, feel that refusal to be represented by an agent of his choice would tantamount to denial of natural justice. Ordinarily, it is considered desirable not to restrict this right of representation by Counsel or an agent of one's choice, but it is a different thing to say that such a right is an element of the principles of natural justice and denial thereof would http://www.judis.nic.in 17/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 invalidate the enquiry.
( c) However, it cannot be said that the delinquent employee has no right to be represented in the departmental proceedings by a lawyer unless the facts involved in the disciplinary proceedings were of a complex nature in which case the assistance of a lawyer could be permitted. In such type of case, this Court opined in Muthuraman S and others Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and another, reported in 2003 III LLJ 52 that the observations made in the Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, reported in 1993 I LLJ 907, with regard to the effect of the absence of provision in the Standing Orders must be viewed in the context of the facts of that case, and cannot be read as imposing an obligation on the employer to compel them to provide such assistance even when the management itself was not represented by legally trained persons. The law laid down in that case meant to ensure that the scales were held even in a contest between unequals, and that if the management had the benefit of the assistance of legally trained persons, the workmen could not be denied such benefits.
10. Further, this Court in the case of http://www.judis.nic.in 18/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 S.Gnanasambadnam Vs. Tamil Nadu Cement Corporation Ltd. represented by Chairman and Managing Director, Chennai and another, reported in 2001 II LLR 323, held as follows:
" when the rule is silent as to the assistance of a lawyer/legally trained person for both the employer and the employee; and the employer had chosen to appoint a Presenting Officer who is a legally trained person to put forth the case of the employer before the Enquiry Officer, the same benefit has to be given to the employee to avoid a total imbalance creeping into the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and to follow the principles of natural justice."
11. Further, in the following cases, denial of representation through lawyer on the ground that the Presenting Officer is not a legally trained person was upheld in Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Harinarayan Srivatsav Vs.United Commercial Bank and another, reported in 1997 (4) SCC 384 wherein facts of the case are that the Bank issued charge sheet to one of its Officers, alleging that he sanctioned loan for non-existing fictitious persons and got disbursement of demand drafts in their favour. The Bank also filed a criminal case against him. When a disciplinary enquiry was initiated, Officer requested for permission to http://www.judis.nic.in 19/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 engage services of an advocate, since the Presenting Officer of the Bank was a law-graduate. The Bank, however, rejected his request on the ground that Clause 19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement only provided an option to the employee to seek for a lawyer's assistance. In the process of litigation, the matter came up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided the case in favour of the Bank stating that the facts are not complicated and the Presenting Officer of the Bank was not a legally trained person; and that the said clause of the Bipartite Settlement is only an option and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
12. Further, the law settled with regard to the issuing of Show cause notice to the delinquent employee after submission of enquiry findings to the disciplinary authority by the Enquiry Officer is that:
(a). Wherein a case, the Enquiry Officer finds the delinquent employee guilty of charges, and the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he may have to issue show cause notice, along with a copy of the enquiry report, to the delinquent employee, calling for his explanation, for taking a decision in the matter.
(b). The question as to whether the Disciplinary Authority has http://www.judis.nic.in 20/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 prejudged the matter conclusively before giving an opportunity or not, should be decided in the context of the issuance of the Second show cause notice and also taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Communicating reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, along with the order of punishment is not justified.
13. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs.Kunj Behari Mishra, reported in 1998(7)SCC84 that the purpose of providing an opportunity to an employee to offer his comments on the enquiry report is to provide a fair opportunity to him so that the authority can consider the version put forward by the employee and then alone pass an order dropping or inflicting punishment upon the delinquent employee.
14. Relying upon the said decision of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. Union Bank of India and others reported in 2001(1)CLR page 731 held that:
(a) The principles of natural justice demand that the Authority http://www.judis.nic.in 21/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer any punishment, must give him a hearing. When the Enquiry Officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be supplied to the delinquent officer in order to enable him to make a representation before the Disciplinary Authority take further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer.
(b) As a matter of fact mere submission of findings or the report of the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority does not bring about the closure of the Enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings come to an end only when the Disciplinary Authority takes a final decision on the basis of that enquiry report and decides to inflict punishment upon the delinquent officer.
( c) Therefore, in a departmental proceeding what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. It will be most unfair to deprive the delinquent officer of the right to know what has been held against him by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the which the Disciplinary Authority wants to take final decision. That is the reason why law requires that the Disciplinary Authority before passing a final order, should record a finding of guilt and intention, i.e., tentative http://www.judis.nic.in 22/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 decision to impose punishment on the delinquent officer.
(d) Tentative decision may after hearing the delinquent officer convert into final decision. Delinquent employee has a right of hearing, not only during the enquiry proceedings, but also at the stage at which those findings are being considered by the Disciplinary Authority. This is in consonance with the requirement of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as it provides that a person shall not be dismissed or removed except after an enquiry and right of hearing before a final decision is taken. This right, being a Constitutional right of the employee, cannot be taken away by any legislative enactment or service Rule including Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. Therefore, reliance on sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 is of no consonance in view of the settled principle of law.
15. In this case, the report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the petitioner. However, the statement of the witnesses recorded by the enquiry officer in the absence of the petitioner was not furnished to him. In the meanwhile, upon receiving the enquiry report, the third respondent has predetermined even before issuing second show cause notice seeking http://www.judis.nic.in 23/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 for explanation from the petitioner. The enquiry report was submitted to the School Management. Accordingly, the Governing Body of the Meeting held on 19.10.2000 passed minutes as follows:
"The report of the enquiry officer was read at the meeting and the Governing Body considered the entire report and unanimously resolved to accept the same and issue show cause notice on the penalty liable to be imposed for dismissal from service and serve the same and this resolution giving him a week's time for reply. If no reply is received it will be presumed that he has no explanation to offer and the final orders will be passed."
In pursuant to the above, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.10.2000 seeking for his explanation by one week as per the details given below:
"Please find enclosed report of the enquiry officer with the resolution of the Governing Body dated 19.10.2000. You are hereby called upon to prefer your reply why on the basis of the report your service should not be terminated. The reply should reach the under signed within one week from the date of service, otherwise it will be presumed that you have no explanation to offer why the penalty should not be imposed on you as stated above."
After receiving the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his reply by specifically stating that the deposition of the witnesses recorded after he left the enquiry, has not been furnished to him and requested to reopen the enquiry enabling him to cross examine the witness. However, the third respondent did not consider the said plea http://www.judis.nic.in 24/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 of the petitioner and passed an order of dismissal from service. In view of the above, it shows that the order of the termination, terminating the petitioner from service, was passed without following mandatory proceedings that after receiving enquiry report from the enquiry officer, the third respondent should have furnished the same to the petitioner and called for the explanation and thereafter, should have taken decision regarding quantum of punishment. But, in this case, without furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner and calling for further explanation by issuing second cause notice, straight away placed the report before the Management wherein it was decided to terminate the petitioner from service and then issued second show cause notice which violates the principles of natural justice. The decision which was already taken by the management shows that the third respondent already predetermined and taken a decision to terminate the petitioner from service and then issued second cause notice to the petitioner.
16. Further, on a perusal of the entire records, it is clear that the third respondent had predetermined to terminate the petitioner from http://www.judis.nic.in 25/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 service. Therefore, this Court holds that for non compliance of the principles of natural justice in the manner referred to the above, the order of termination passed against the petitioner stands vitiated. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the orders of the Respondents are hereby set aside. Hence, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and to pass an order permitting the petitioner to retire from service with all consequential service and monetary benefits, but without back wages. The said exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
.11.2020 lbm Index: Yes/ No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order http://www.judis.nic.in 26/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 To:
1. The Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9
2. The Director of Matriculation Schools, Chennai - 6
3. Sir M. Venkata Subba Rao Matriculation Higher Secondary School.
Rep. by its Correspondent, 57-B, Thirumalaipillari Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 17.
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
lbm http://www.judis.nic.in 27/28 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 W.P.No.8247 of 2007 .11.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 28/28