RAJA Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was serving as a Secondary Grade teacher under Bishop Corrie Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, represented by 5th respondent. Said school is administered by the Church of South India of Madras Diocese, the fourth respondent and it is partly aided by the Government. Sixth respondent, the Headmaster of the school served a charge memo dated 28.11.1995 alleging inter alia that the petitioner had misbehaved with a girl student and had abused his profession and failed to maintain discipline in the class room. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. Thereafter he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. Seventh respondent was appointed as the enquiry officer. Enquiry Officer submitted his report containing findings against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 25.3.1996. The petitioner preferred appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent forwarded the appeal to the third respondent, who allowed the appeal and directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service mainly on the ground that the enquiry was commenced in the absence of the delinquent, the delinquent was not allowed to cross-examine the girl student separately, he has placed under suspension but had not been paid subsistence allowance, the signatures of all the students in the earlier letters of complaint and the signature in the enquiry proceedings differ, the allegations made against the delinquent were vague, the girl students were not separately examined and the Correspondent, who is the officer to pass the order of termination, has participate in the enquiry held on 25.1.1996. The petitioner sent a lawyer s notice stating that fifth respondent is not in a position to implement the order dated 14.11.1996, passed by the third respondent. The petitioner at that stage filed W.P.No.10773 of 1997 to implement the order passed by the third respondent and to reinstate the petitioner in service with backwages. The said writ petition was resisted by the respondents 3 to 6 by taking a stand that the petitioner s school is a minority institution and the order passed by the third respondent is without jurisdiction. Respondents 4 to 6 had also filed W.P.No.5678 of 1998 challenging the order of the third respondent dated 14.11.1996. It is stated by the petitioner that in view of such a challenge, as a counter W.P.No.5678 of 1998 was filed by the Management and the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of termination itself.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Management justifying the order of termination and denying the allegations relating to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) It appears that in the meantime W.P.No.5678 of 1998 filed by the Management has been allowed on concession of the parties. In other words, the direction given by the appellate authority had been quashed. Since W.P.No.10773 of 1997 has been filed to implement the order passed by the appellate authority, it is obvious that such writ petition, even if now pending, has become infructuous and the validity of the order of termination has to be examined in the present writ petition.