SECRETARY Vs. V MOGALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Single Judge made in WP No.23916 of 2009 dated 27.8.2009 is challenged in this writ petition by the respondents 4 and 5.

(2.) The 1st respondent was working as Head Master in Government Aided Private School viz., National Higher Secondary School, Gudiyattam, Vellore District, from the year 1991. The 1st appellant is the Secretary of the School Committee and the 2nd appellant is a committee member. Since the 2nd appellant insisted the 1st respondent to give voluntary retirement application, on 14.12.2007, the 1st respondent gave such application. Subsequently, the 1st respondent was permitted to withdraw the voluntary retirement application on 5.3.2008. However, an order of suspension was served on the 1st respondent on 29.3.2008 and a charge memo dated 9.5.2008 was issued containing 19 charges including alleged sexual harassment of girl students and financial irregularities. On 20.5.2008, the 1st appellant informed the appointment of an Enquiry Officer even prior to the explanation of the 1st respondent. On 24.5.2008, the 1st respondent submitted a detailed explanation to the charge memo. Not satisfying with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and he submitted a report on 16.7.2008. He found charge Nos. 1 to 8, 10 to 12 , 14 and 17 were proved and charge Nos.9,13,18 and 19 were not proved and charge Nos.15 and 16 were dropped by the Management. A copy of the report was furnished to the 1st respondent on 18.7.2008 with a direction to submit his representation before 23.7.2008. On 22.7.2008, the 1st respondent sent a letter requesting extension of time for submitting his representation. However, on 23.7.2008, the request of the 1st respondent was rejected and based on the enquiry report, the School Committee resolved to dismiss the 1st appellant. Resolution was forwarded to the Chief Educational Officer, who is the competent authority and meanwhile, the 1st respondent forwarded a representation dated 28.7.2008 to the School Committee. The competent authority approved the dismissal by its order dated 13.9.208. On 16.9.2008 the School Committee considered the representation and rejected the same and the order of dismissal was intimated to the 1st respondent. On 24.9.2008, the 1st respondent filed a Writ Petition stating that principles of Natural justice was violated by not affording an opportunity to him to submit a representation against the Enquiry Report.

(3.) The Writ Petition was filed against the official respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 4 and 5 who are the Secretary and the Member of the School Committee. The School Committee filed a counter interalia, stating that serious allegations were levelled against the 1st respondent including the alleged sexual harassment to the girl students and also for committing financial irregularities on which enquiry was initiated; sufficient opportunities were given in each and every stage of the enquiry; and the official respondents 1 to 3 have intimated to the School Committee that the enquiry has to be completed within a period of four months, which expired on July 2008 and therefore, time extension was not granted to the 1st respondent . It was also submitted that sufficient opportunities were given to the 1st respondent for submitting explanation for the charge memo, to take part in the independent enquiry, to be represented through a counsel and to examine and cross examine the witnesses. According to the appellants a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded with a direction to submit his representation giving sufficient time.