Madras High Court
V.Nagarj Kannan vs The Joint Director Of School ... on 6 July, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.151 of 2020
and C.M.P.(MD)No.1125 of 2020
V.Nagarj Kannan ...Appellant
-Vs-
1.The Joint Director of School Education (Secondary)
Office of the Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Secretary,
K.H.N.Nadar Higher Secondary School,
Perunali,
Kamuthi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the
order dated 26.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.16672 of 2016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Standing Counsel for Govt. for R1 to R3
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R4
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,]
Heard Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Standing Counsel for the Government
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
2. This Writ Appeal by writ petitioner is directed against the order
dated 26.04.2019 made in W.P.(MD)No.16672 of 2016.
3. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of dismissal
dated 12.04.2014, passed by the respondent Management against the
appellant approved by the Department and confirmed in appeal by the
first respondent. The learned Writ Court before examining the
correctness of the order of dismissal first pointed out the role of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
Teacher. It has referred to ethics, decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
and speeches of great man of repute. The reason for doing so is that the
appellant, who was a Drawing Master in the fourth respondent
institution, behaved in such a manner unbecoming of a Teacher. He was
under the influence of Alcohol during school hours. He misbehaved with
a girl child and the girl child had given a complaint. He had left the
institution without obtaining permission. He did not participate in the
referral course and did not report to school properly and when he was
intoxicated, his behavior was highly improper. The charge proceedings
led to conduct of an enquiry and conclusion of the enquiry, a report was
submitted stating that the charges are proved, which was placed before
the disciplinary authority and he was dismissed from service. Since the
fourth respondent school is an aided institution, approval has been
obtained from the Department, which was sought for and the Department
has granted approval. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the
first respondent, which has also been dismissed by a stigmatic order
dated 10.07.2015. Challenging those orders, Writ Petition was filed.
4. In the Writ Petition, it was contended that the order of dismissal
and the domestic enquiry was in gross violation of principles of natural
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
justice. The fourth respondent did not follow the provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules
framed thereunder. The order of dismissal is on account of victimization
and it is a predetermined order. The order of approval granted by the
second respondent is illegal, arbitrary and the fourth respondent did not
pay the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The
appellate authority passed the order without application of mind. To say
the least, all the grounds raised in the Writ Petition are absolutely vague,
because the appellant does not show as to whether he was denied
opportunity and what was the nature of violation of principles of natural
justice. It is the statutory provision, which has been followed by the
management or the approving authority or the appellate authority. Non
payment of subsistence allowance cannot be a ground to quash the order
of dismissal. The appellant has not been able to establish any prejudice,
which was caused to him on account of such non-payment of subsistence
allowance. In fact, he has approached this Court by filing W.P.(MD)No.
8697 of 2013, which was disposed of on 23.05.2013, refusing to interfere
with the second show cause notice and disposing of the Writ Petition
with certain directions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
5. Furthermore, the appellant has participated in the domestic
enquiry, received the second show cause notice and submitted his
explanation and thereafter, the order of dismissal has been passed. The
requirement, which is to be fulfilled in a disciplinary proceedings, is not
required to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, but what is
required is preponderance of probability. From the perusal of the
relevant documents placed before us, we are satisfied that reasonable
opportunity has been granted to the appellant at all stages of the matter.
Therefore, the learned Writ Court was right in dismissing the Writ
Petition. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that
the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor, toned the role of an Enquiry
Officer as well as a prosecutor thereby virtually acted as a representative
of the management. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that the
appellant has been permitted because of certain internal issues in the
management. To substantiate the said contention of the appellant, the
appellant has produced affidavit alleged to have been sworn by the
victim girl, signed before a Notary Public, who is practising in Kamuthi
(Taluk), Ramanathapuram District. It is very unfortunate state of affairs
in the case on hand. The appellant has gone to the extent of preparing an
affidavit and affixing photograph of the victim girl, wherein she appears
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
to have stated that no such incident had occurred. This one move of the
appellant is sufficient to hold that he is unfit to be a Teacher. As already
observed, we are fully satisfied that sufficient opportunity has been
granted to the appellant in the domestic enquiry. The plea of bias now
raised is absolutely untenable and unsustainable. The disciplinary
authority had applied his mind and passed an order and has reconsidered
the matter and thereafter granted approval. The appellate authority has
independently taken a decision in the matter. Thus, we are of the definite
view that the appellant has not made out any case for interference to the
order passed in the Writ Petition.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S. J.,] [S.A.I. J.,]
06.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
vsm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
To
1.The Joint Director of School Education (Secondary)
Office of the Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer,
Office of Chief Educational Officer,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The District Educational Officer,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD) No.151 of 2020
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.,
and
S.ANANTHI, J.,
vsm
W.A.(MD)No.151 of 2020
and C.M.P.(MD)No.1125 of 2020
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
