C.ZOPHAR JOTHIPAUL Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions are filed by one and the same petitioner. In W.P. MD) No. 9148 of 2007, the petitioner challenged the transfer order, dated 25.10.2007, passed by the second respondent and in W.P. MD) No. 5305 of 2008, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal, dated 26.05.2008, passed by the second respondent. In both the proceedings, the respondents are one and the same.

(2.) As the facts narrated by the petitioner in both these writ petitions are one and the same, they are extracted hereunder in common:-

(3.) The respondents 2 and 4 filed separate counter affidavit in both the writ petitions. It is stated therein that the petitioner was transferred on 16.10.2007 from the third respondent school to T.D.T.A. High School, K. Kailasapuram. He refused to receive the said order and had gone on casual leave. There are some complaints against the petitioner which are pending. Keeping all these points in mind, the management, on the administrative reason, transferred the petitioner. Insofar as the order of dismissal is concerned, the respondents 2 and 4 in their counter affidavit stated that the petitioner did not raise any objection against the constitution of the enquiry committee consisting of respondents 2 to 5 and other persons either at the time of enquiry or before its commencement. The enquiry committee has to be necessarily constituted with the Headmaster of the Institution, where he originally served and the other Headmaster of the Institution, to which, he was transferred. One more teacher from other institution, by name, Julian Samnayagam, was also made as a member of the committee and the Correspondent of the school was also made as the committee member. Therefore, the constitution of the enquiry committee was not with any mala fide or bias. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry committee on 12.05.2008 and made a statement and did not seek for any personal enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from making any allegations against the members of the enquiry committee. It is also false to contend that the enquiry committee threatened the petitioner to withdraw the criminal case filed against the respondents 4 and 5. The enquiry committee is not the disciplinary authority and therefore, they could not have made any such threat. As the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents 4 and 5 were not of personal in nature, the petitioner cannot object to the presence of the respondents 4 and 5, in the enquiry committee. The petitioner cannot command that the School Committee should appoint a Sub Committee or an independent Enquiry Officer for the purpose of conducting an enquiry, and there is no need for the same as the petitioner did not ask for the same at any stage. The second respondent alone is the appointing authority and he also being the disciplinary authority, is competent to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner did not show in any manner, as to how, the report of the enquiry committee was otherwise biased, inasmuch as, the conclusions reached by the enquiry committee was based on the records available. The second respondent applied his own mind on the materials available and by considering the report of the enquiry committee had come to the conclusions and removed the petitioner from service.