P. G. ARUNACHALAM Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P .G. Arunachalam, is the Petitioner. He is the Headmaster of the Corporation High School, Tiruvottiyur, Madras. He entered service in August 1950 as B.T. Assistant in the Corporation High School, Nungambakkam. He was promoted as Headmaster in June, 1964. Ever since his appointment as a teacher, he maintains that, he has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors without any blemish. He makes certain allegations against a Councillor of the Corporation in respect of admission of pupils into the High School. According to the petitioner, on the 19th June, 1968 at about 12 noon, when the petitioner was in his office in the first floor of the school, his peon came and told him that some Councillors had come and they wanted to see him. He sent word through the peon that he would be seeing them and immediately he asked the three teachers and the attender who were then in his room assisting him, to leave the room in order to enable him to attend to the Councillors. Several parents and other pupils who had come in connection with the admission of the students were also requested to wait outside. The petitioner locked the cash box and came just outside the room to lock the door. At that time, the petitioner's peon returned back and informed him that the Councillors had gone away in spite of their having information about the petitioner moving to meet them. On 25th June, 1968, the petitioner received an order from the respondent relieving him forthwith of his duties as Headmaster of the School. He handed over charge to the First Assistant on the same day. On 27th June, 1968 he was suspended with effect from 25th June, 1968 pending framing of charges. He moved this Court for suspending the operation of the orders of the respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition No, 2413 of 1968. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, but the learned Judge observed that it is a shocking case of abuse of authority, and even went to the extent of awarding costs against the respondent while dismissing the writ petition. Evidently, the enquiry was conducted and completed before the date of the final disposal of the Writ Petition No. 2413 of 1968 on 21st January, 1970. The punishment of withholding of increment for six months was inflicted on the petitioner by an order dated 10th November, 1969. The finding of the respondent is extracted here below:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner frankly stated before this Court that the grounds on which the impugned order is attacked are based on the mistaken notion that the old Sections 85 to 97 of the Madras City Municipal Act (IV of 1919), are still in force and that the petitioner was unaware of the provisions of the Amending Act LVI of 1961. But the learned Counsel subsequently placed strong reliance on a judgment of this Court in C. Kuppuswamy v. Corporation of Madras W.P. No. 245: of 1972 judgment dated 29th March, 1973. and argued that on the date of the impugned order passed against the petitioner, there was no power vested in the Commissioner to punish the petitioner.

(3.) ONE limb of the argument of Mr. Thillaivillalan, is that, notwithstanding the absence of "by -laws made by the Council under Section 349 of the principal Act, within the meaning of Section 86 of the Amending Act, 1961, "there is the power vested in the Commissioner by the Transitional Provision No. 5 of Schedule II read with Section 102 of the Amending Act of 1961. I shall first dispose of this limb or argument before I notice the validity of the second limb, which I shall presently deal with. In the Madras City Municipal Act, viz., the principal Act IV of 1919, one finds the Sections 85 to 97 dealing with various aspects of the Establishments. It is of particular significance to notice the two sections i.e., Sections 93 and 96. They are extracted here below: