NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MADRAS Vs. EDUCATION TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent 2 was a teacher in the appellant school. It is a recognised private school. The Secretary of the School Committee framed certain charges against the respondent and he was called upon to give explanation. The respondent in his explanation specifically pleaded that he needed an enquiry into the matter by retired educationists of the local area other than the school committee. Accepting that request a committee other than the school committee was constituted to hold an enquiry. The committee conducted the enquiry in which the respondent participated and did not raise any objection as to its jurisdiction. The committee found him guilty and submitted a report to the school committee. The school committee after obtaining approval from the Department dismissed the respondent from service. Against the dismissal order an appeal was preferred to the Joint Director. The Joint Director set aside the order of dismissal solely on the ground that the enquiry ought to have been conducted by the school committee and not by any outside authority. This view has been upheld by the Educational Tribunal. But learned single Judge of the High Court expressed a contrary view. He held that the school committee must take decision on the misconduct, but enquiry could be conducted by others. There is no requirement under law that the school committee itself must hold the enquiry. He remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration of the other contentions raised in the appeal.

(2.) The Division Bench of the High Court, however, has set aside the remand order of learned single Judge. It has observed that the Management has no power to constitute any other committee to enquire into the misconduct of teachers and the school committee should itself conduct the enquiry. In support of this conclusion, the Division Bench relied upon paragraph 7 of the Form VII(A) prescribed under the Rules.

(3.) Hence this appeal by the school management.