D JAYAKUMAR PONNUDURAI Vs. DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of all the parties, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) In W.P.No.35038 of 2002, the petitioner - Secondary Grade Teacher in the Inter Christian Mission Middle School, Koilpatti, seeks to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to change the Enquiry Officer and entrust the same to somebody preferably to the Departmental Officials or other than the third respondent and conduct enquiry and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. In W.P.No.40282 of 2002, the very same petitioner challenges the order passed by the third respondent / Managing Trustee - Executive Director and Correspondent of the School dated 11.09.2002, in and by which the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from the School for the proved misconduct.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent School on 10.07.1987 and his appointment was also approved. He was also awarded Selection Grade in 1997. While so, on 31.07.2002, based on the memo dated 02.07.2002, he was placed under suspension. He submitted his explanation to the said memo on 05.07.2002, denying the same. Another memo was also issued to him stating that he scolded the Headmaster and the Correspondent in a filthy language, for which he submitted an explanation on 06.08.2002, denying the charge. The Correspondent, directed the petitioner to appear for an enquiry before him on 20.08.2002. Since the Correspondent himself is going to hold an enquiry, there will not be any fair and proper enquiry, because one of the charge is that he uttered filthy language against the Correspondent. In the interest of fair and free play, it is just and necessary to change the enquiry to some other person, except the Correspondent. In the other writ petition, it is stated that in spite of pendency of Writ Petition No.35038 of 2002, the third respondent ought to have deferred further action till the decision by this Court. However, the third respondent passed an order on 11.09.2002, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why punishment of dismissal should not be imposed. Questioning the said notice dated 11.09.2002, the petitioner has filed the other writ petition 40282 of 2002.