Madras High Court
Syed Jamal vs The Joint Director Of School Education ... on 4 September, 2014
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, K.Ravichandrabaabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.A.No.805 of 2013
Syed Jamal ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
College Road, DMS Compound,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Tirupattur,
Vellore District.
3. The Correspondent,
Osmania Higher Secondary School,
No.6, Rajan street,
Tirupattur,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
Writ Appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 05.4.2011 in W.P.No.26867 of 2010.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Amalraj
For Respondent : Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi
Special Government Pleader for R1&R2
Mr.Zaffarullah Khan for R3
JUDGMENT
(Order the Court was made by N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J) Heard Mr.A.Amalraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs.A.Sri Jayanthi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Zaffarullah Khan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
2. This writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.26867 of 2010, dated 05.4.2011 wherein the petitioner has challenged the order of the 3rd respondent dated 27.4.1998 and the consequential communication issued by the 2nd respondent dated 28.8.2010 and prayed for a direction to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits arising thereto.
3. Brief facts are that the appellant was appointed as Record Clerk by the 3rd respondent school, which is a religious minority school. On some charges of misappropriation of the 3rd respondent school funds by the appellant, a Charge Memo was issued to the appellant on 17.12.1997 and enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 05.3.1998 and on satisfaction of the charges being proved, the Management terminated the service of the appellant on 27.4.1998. Challenging the order of termination, the appellant has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the order of termination issued by the 3rd respondent as well as the communication of the 2nd respondent dated 28.8.2010 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits. Resisting the writ petition, the 2nd respondent Department and the 3rd respondent school Management have filed their counter-affidavits.
4. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, taking note of the fact that the writ petition was filed after a delay of 13 years. The learned single Judge has also not countenanced the arguments of the learned counsel then appeared for the appellant in the writ petition that the 3rd respondent school being a minority school, no prior permission before termination under Section 22(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, need be obtained.
5. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal has argued the matter on merits. It is seen from the records that the appellant, who served as Record Clerk in the 3rd respondent school was issued with a Charge Memo dated 17.12.1997 for misappropriation of a sum of Rs.14,972.50 from the Teachers' Insurance Money and Recurring Deposit amounts. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant to explain the said charges giving 10 days time. In his reply made before the Disciplinary Action Committee, the appellant has stated that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.14,272.50 and according to the instruction of administration, he has paid the above said amount and the mistake has been happened due to his family circumstances and due to bad habits and the appellant prayed for pardon. The appellant also undertook to pay the misappropriated amount of Rs.14,272.50, including penalty, interest for LIC within 30.10.1997 to the Correspondent, failing which, a criminal action may be taken against him. The said statement was given by the appellant without anybody's instigation, which was signed in the presence of three witnesses on 20.1.1998.
6. Since the appellant has admitted the guilt unequivocally about the misappropriation and undertook to pay the amount, the appellant cannot challenge the termination order on any account.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent school has submitted that the petitioner has also not paid the misappropriated amount, as assured, as on today.
8. It is a well settled principle of law that if misappropriation is admitted by the delinquent or proved, the Management will lost the confidence of the said delinquent and he cannot be retained in service. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the appellant has not stated about any coersion/undue influence made by the 3rd respondent or any of the officials of the 3rd respondent school Management to give such a statement.
9. Hence on merits also, we are unable to interfere with the order of termination as well as the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.4.2011 made in W.P.No.26867 of 2010 and the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(N.P.V.,J) (K.R.C.B.,J)
04.09.2014
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bbr
To
1. The Joint Director of School Education (Personnel),
College Road, DMS Compound,
Chennai 600 006.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Tirupattur,
Vellore District.
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J
AND
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J
bbr
W.A.No.805 of 2013
04.9.2014