R.SANTHAKUMARI Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P.No.19869 of 2012, the petitioner is an Headmistress of a private aided school at Chennai. In this writ petition, she has sought for setting aside an order placing the petitioner under suspension pending approval by the education department with reference to the demand of the school for dismissing the petitioner from service. When the writ petition came up on 27.07.2012, this court had ordered notice of motion.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the management of the school represented by its Secretary filed the second writ petition being W.P.No.23932 of 2012 seeking to challenge an order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the District Educational Officer, North Chennai taking exception to placing the Headmistress under suspension pending approval by the department. Since the rules regarding the conduct of domestic enquiry as found in the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder were not followed, the approval was refused by the District Educational Officer. That writ petition when it came up for admission on 03.09.2012, it was directed to be posted along with the earlier writ petition filed by the Headmistress. Hence both the writ petitions were grouped together and a common order is passed.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the school is run by a non minority and that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder will squarely apply to the school. It is seen from the records that the teacher was having M.Sc., M.Phil and B.Ed. degrees. She was appointed as Headmistress of the school with effect from 01.08.2009. After her taking charge as headmistress, it is claimed by her that in respect of higher secondary examinations, the result of the school was 100% for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 and 99% in 2011-2012. When the Secretary of the School started interfering with the internal administration, the teacher informed him that the Secretary has no right to interfere with the internal administration of the school. But notwithstanding the same, the Secretary started giving several charge memos without being approved by the school committee. On 22.03.2012, the Secretary gave a notice of enquiry together with a charge memo framed against her. It was stated that the list of charges referred to in the annexure to the memo, dated 22.3.2012 supersedes the previous charges levelled against her. Without asking for any explanation on the charge memo and without giving reasonable time for giving an explanation, the management had informed her that the school committee by a resolution, dated 12.03.2012 had appointed a retired Judge of the Supreme Court (Justice S.Mohan) as en enquiry officer. She was directed to appear either in person or through an Advocate to defend the charges, at Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre, Mylapore. The retired Supreme court judge, who was appointed as a domestic enquiry officer by the management, had conducted the domestic enquiry, examined 11 witnesses on 02.05.2012 and also marked 13 documents. By his report, dated 25.5.2012, he found the petitioner guilty of all charges. After holding her guilty of charges and after making a sermon as to how the educational institution should be considered as temple, in the last paragraph, he had made the following observations :