V GANESAN Vs. SAKTHIMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit o. S. No. 87 of 1978 on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram for a declaration that the order dated 17. 10. 1973 of the 2nd defendant Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram , is not valid and for consequential injunction.

(2.) THE above said order of the 2nd defendant directed reinstatement of the 1st defendant in the employment of the plaintiff s school as teacher therein. THE suit was dismissed and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. THE suit was dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of Secs. 53 and 54 read with Sec. 25 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act').

(3.) IN Ex. A-1 the District Educational Officer, after holding that the 1st defendant's suspension is proper since he has quarrelled with the manager, using unparliamentary words, disobeyed the orders of his superiors and also misbehaved with a lady teacher, proceeds to deal with each of the 14 charges for terminating the service of the 1st defendant. I shall mention about some of the charges dealt with by him. The first charge relates to the 1st defendant's writing two love letters. With reference to the first love letter, the explanation given by the 1st defendant was that a story written by him for a magazine, had been misused by the manager as lover letter. Dealing with this explanation, the said order finds that if it was a story, then the characters in the story should be fictitious and should not in any way coincide with the names of the lady teachers in the school. Then the order deals with the next love letter and points out the memo issued by the Manager of the school in regard to this second letter and concludes that it is true that the then manager had issued oral instructions to the 1st defendant at the time when the love letter affair was brought to his notice, with the main intention of safe-guarding the reputation of the institution and correcting the appellant. Regarding the 3rd charge, that the 1st defendant entered unwanted remarks in the circular notebook, the District Educational Officer finds that the 1st defendant should bat have written such remarks in the circular note-book. Then, regarding the 4th and 5th charges, the explanation by the 1st defendant was that whatever criticism the Headmaster had to pass on his subordinates, he should not do it in the presence of the pupils and members of staff. But, the District educational Officer finds that the Headmaster had not criticised the 1st defendant in the presence of pupils but simply asked him why he had not taught any lesson to the pupils, and that the 1st defendant's re-action then led the pupils to laugh at the Headmaster which amounted to mockery. It was also found by the District Educational Officer that from the enquiry report dated 2. 1. 1971 of the Deputy INspector of Schools, the 1st defendant was not in the habit of replying to the questions of Headmaster with politeness, but used to reply in careless and in sarcastic manner. Therefore he finds that the 1st defendant was in the habit of ridiculing the Headmaster and questioning his superiority and authority. Then, dealing with the 9th charge it is stated that the 1st defendant deposed that the Headmaster and manager failed in their duty to remit the four days' pay into the Sub Treasury. IN this regard the order concludes that the 1st defendant had given a false statement to the Manager and proved himself a lier and cheat. Then, regarding the 10th charge, the conclusion reached by the district Educational Officer is that the 1st defendant had received his salary on 5. 10. 1970 and signed in the Masters'Attendance Register on 8. 10. 1970, even though he stated that he received the salary on 8. 10. 1970 only. The District Educational Officer also concludes that the school records have been tampered with by the 1st defendant. Regarding the 12th and 13th charges, the officer concludes that the marking of false attendance clearly proved the wilful neglect of duty, and the refusal to receive the memo amounted to insubordination. It has also been observed in the said order that instead of giving reply to the charges, the 1st defendant had made certain observations against the Headmaster and manager, which were uncalled for. Regarding the 14th charge, the District educational Officer observes that the statement of the teachers clearly revealed that the 1st defendant had misbehaved with Sulochana , assistant of the school.