A SHANMUGA DEVI Vs. NIRMAL HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of all the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Reference No. 10/89 dated 25-10-1989 and to quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Headmistress of Nirmal Primary School, Ayanavaram, Madras as per the order of the District Educational Officer dated 27-3-1989.

(2.) THE petitioner, in the affidavid filed in support of the writ petition claims that she joined the service as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1958 in Davapriyam Henry Memorial Middle School and that she was later promoted as Headmistress on 1-4-1971 in the said school. THE petitioner would claim that the school in question was transferred in the year 1983 to the present management and thereafter the name was changed as Nirmal Middle School. THE school is receiving aid from the Government and is an aided institution. THE petitioner would claim that the school in question is not a minority institution, but due to certain civil proceedings, pending orders of the Civil Court, resulting in interim orders of injunction pending final adjudication, some of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 held not applicable to the minority institutions, have been restrained from being implemented in respect of the 1st respondent-institution.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In my view, the grievance of the petitioner about the mode and method of conduct of enquiry is well justified. The failure on the part of the Enquiry Officer to issue notice to confirm the position as claimed by the 1st respondent-Management that the petitioner left the place of enquiry and abandoned it, undermines the credibility of the claim itself. On the other hand, the claim made for the petitioner appears to be more plausible and reasonable too, in that, in view of the objection raised in writing regarding the competency of the enquiry to be proceeded with before reinstatement, the Enquiry Officer only assured the petitioner to communicate after getting the view of the Management, the further date of the enquiry. The conduct of enquiry on 1-9-1989 in the absence of the petitioner in my view is a serious error and irregularity, which vitiated the very enquiry and that the findings rendered or materials gathered behind the back of the petitioner in the ex parte enquiry, cannot be sustained and in my view, they are violative of the principles of natural justice. Even that apart, the impugned order does not also disclose proper application of mind based on the so called findings rendered and the general and casual manner in which the impugned order has been prepared and sent to the petitioner, which involves serious consequences, affecting the career of the petitioner, can be hardly justified to be one in conformity with the requirements of law. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby quashed.