K SUBRAMANIAN Vs. MADRAS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as Lab Assistant in Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School run by Madras Christian College Association established and administered by Christian minority community. He was issued with an office memorandum dated 22.3.94 to offer his explanation in respect of the alleged misconduct, namely, that he picked up a quarrel with a P.G.Teacher by name Thiru Nedunchezhiyan and also used abusive language against another teacher by name Raju. An explanation was received and thereafter, on an enquiry, the charges were found to be proved. By a notice dated 3.9.94, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to the proposed punishment. In spite of the above proceedings, no final orders were passed.

(2.) IN the meantime, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the police on 13.4.94 against the Headmaster, Thiru.Nedunchezhiyan, Thiru. Manivasagam and Thiru.Raju, the teachers under Sections 323, 506(i) read with Section 114 of INdian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The gist of the complaint was that while he was on duty on 18.3.94, at about 10.45 a.m., and was taking tea in the school canteen with his colleagues, the above teachers, who were also taking coffee at the same time, abused the petitioner by referring to his caste, as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. When the same was questioned, he was assaulted by the accused.

(3.) MR.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitoner would challenge the order mainly on the ground that one MR.S.W.Kanagaraj, an Advocate who defended the accused in criminal case, had framed the charges and he only appointed the enquiry officer, though the Board of Directors are alone empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In any event, the charges are vague. He would also submit that the Board of Directors also did not apply their mind and also did not provide any opportunity to the petitoner before passing the impugned order. Lastly he would submit that in any case the findings in criminal proceedings cannot be the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. In this regard, he relied upon an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 25.8.2006, to which one of us (DMJ) was a party, made in W.A.Nos.1844 and 1845 of 2003 filed by two of the employees of the very same school who were also initiated with the disciplinary proceedings along with the petitioner in the year 1994, and this Court has held that the charge memo issued by an Advocate who defended the accused in criminal case was without jurisdiction and consequently quashed the disciplinary proceedings. Hence the learned counsel, by placing reliance on the above order, would submit that the present proceedings are also liable to be quashed.