SWAMI SADANANDA Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 6251/a1/95, dated 6. 12. 1995, as confirmed by the second respondent's order, dated 25. 6. 1996, in Mu. Mu. No. 1535/w7/96, quash the same and to direct the first respondent to give approval for the dismissal of the third respondent from service as Headmaster of the Vivekananda Higher Secondary School, Tiruvedagam West, Madurai District. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:

(2.) THE third respondent was working as a Headmaster of the the Vivekananda Higher Secondary School, Tiruvedagam West, Madurai District. The then Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, N. Balammal, while on a visit to the School, on 30. 3. 1995, had noticed some grave errors committed by the third respondent. Even though the said students had really failed in their respective Annual Examinations, the third respondent had issued the Transfer Certificates to them, as though they had passed in the Annual Examinations. In the counterfoils of the candidates' Transfer Certificates, it had been mentioned that they were detained. The Then Chief Educational Officer had issued a letter, on 18. 4. 1995, asking the petitioner to take stringent disciplinary action against the third respondent, by giving him the maximum punishment, for the irregularities committed by him. It was also stated that such punishment should act as a deterrent to future incumbents to the Office of the Headmaster. Even before the receipt of the letter, the third respondent was placed under suspension, on 5. 4. 1995. A show cause notice had been issued to him and the following charges had been framed against him. Charge No. 1: The third respondent got the Transfer Certificate prepared by Watchman S. Manoharan instead of by the concerned Clerk. Charge No. 2: Issuing of false Transfer Certificate to one G. Ramasamy to the effect that he had passed VIIIth standard and was fit for joining IXth standard whereas really he had failed in VIIIth standard in 1993-1994. Charge No. 3: Issuing of false Transfer Certificate to one Kasilingam to the effect that he had passed IXth standard in 1993-1994 whereas he had failed in that class. In the counterfoil column 9, it has been stated that he did not pass. Charge No. 4: The third respondent issued the false Transfer Certificates to Suresh Babu, Kumarasamy Raja and R. Sivakumar, as though they had passed IXth standard in 1993-1994, whereas they had actually failed and in the Register of Marks they have been shown as detained. Charge No. 5: The third respondent took away the statements given by G. Ramasamy and Kasilingam, which should have been retained in the Office.

(3.) ON receiving the charge memo, the third respondent had submitted his explanation, on 10. 6. 1995. After receipt of the explanation, the School Committee had conducted an oral enquiry, on 16. 6. 1995. Both in his explanation, dated 10. 6. 1995, and in the enquiry conducted thereafter, the third respondent had admitted to the issuing of the false Transfer Certificates. However, the third respondent had stated that the said Transfer Certificates had been issued only on the instructions of V. S. Narasimhan, who was the Administrator of the School. The School Committee had rejected the explanation submitted by the third respondent in its meeting, dated 18. 7. 1995, and it had held that the charges against the petitioner had been proved. A show cause notice was issued to the third respondent with regard to the proposal to dismiss him from service. The third respondent did not submit any reply to the said notice. The School Committee had again met, on 8. 8. 1995, and decided to dismiss the third respondent from service and had sought for permission from the first respondent, who is the Competent Authority, in accordance with Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The first respondent, after a delay of nearly four months, had passed an order, on 6. 12. 1995, refusing to grant the approval.