THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE School Committee of Balaguru Vidyasalai, Vennilingapuram, has filed the above three writ petitions. Since all are interconnected the same may be disposed of by the following common order.

(2.) THE facts leading to filing of three writ petitions are briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner School is an aided Primary School recognised in the year 1953. One Mrs. S. Sornam was the Headmistress of the said School. The petitioner School was founded by one Balu Thevar and the Secretary of the School Committee by name Sivasubramaniam is one of the sons of Balu Thevar and the Headmistress Mrs. S. Sornam was not co -ordinating with the School Committee and was not able to interact properly with the other teachers. It is contended that, she did not attend the School from 19.2.1994. On 19.2.1994, she applied for medical leave by enclosing medical certificate for 59 days. The leave was extended by another 59 days on the ground that she was suffering from Infective Hepatitis. Hence, she was directed to appear before the Medical Board for examination and the Medical Board ratified the medical leave from 19.4.1994 to 15.7.1994 and recommended leave for 16 days from 16.7.1994. Even thereafter she did not report for duty. The repeated reminders and requests made by the petitioner to the Headmistress to produce proper medical certificate were of no avail. The petitioner also wrote a letter to the District Educational Officer for Primary Schools, Tirunelveli on 14.10.1994 Complaining about the conduct of the second respondent (Headmistress) stating the above facts. The petitioner has also written a letter dated 6.5.1994 to her, directing her to receive her salary for March and April, 1994 and her provident fund advance before 10.5.1994. It is also contended that on 23.2.1995 when the Secretary of the petitioner School was away from the school, and when the acting Headmaster was on leave, she entered the School and forcibly took possession of the attendance register and signed the same. Therefore it was decided to place her under suspension and a chargesheet dated 28.2.1995 was issued to her. She sent a reply on 9.3.1995. To avoid any technical objections, a School Committee was legally constituted and intimation of the same was also sent to her. Her suspension was also revoked. Again on 18.4.1995 without proper authority of medical certificate, she entered the School and also signed the students attendance register at about 11.50 a.m. It is further contended, therefore in the School Committee meeting held on 24.4.1995 charges were framed against the Headmistress for absence from service for over a year without proper authority and for her conduct unbecoming of a Headmistress in entering upon the School without proper authority or Medical Fitness Certificate and in forcibly signing the Registers. The charges were communicated to her on 28.4.1995. On 6.5.1995, she requested further time for submitting her explanation to the charges. On 12.5.1995 she sent her reply to the charges. The adjourned enquiry was finally held on 19.6.1995. Considering the charges against her, the petitioner thought it fit that the punishment of removal of service should be imposed on her. Notice regarding the proposed punishment was also issued to her on 28.6.1995. She sought extension of time to send a reply to the said notice, but no reply was received.

(3.) IT is further contended that the competent authority without sending any reply for the telegrams and letters, reminders in order to threaten the School Committee and to force them to drop action against her, issued a show -cause notice dated 21.2.1996 presumably on the basis of the letter dated 3.1.1996 written by her, why direct payment of salary should not be made to the staff through Headmistress. The first respondent, though received approval petition dated 16.8.1995 issued a show -cause notice at the behest of the Headmistress's letter dated 3.1.1996 as if she was not permitted to join duty. Therefore it was decided by the School Committee that no useful purpose would be served by waiting for the approval order and if the approval was not granted or refused within a reasonable time the School Committee can proceed with the further action. In the meeting held on 22.3.1996 it is resolved to dismiss the second respondent (Headmistress) from the post of Headmistress and the copy of the said resolution was also sent to the District Elementary Educational Officer. After receipt of the resolution passed by the School Committee without reference to the said resolution passed an order by proceedings dated 27.3.1996, directing payment of salary through Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Alankulam and also gave powers to the said Officer to grant leave, to grant annual increment, authorising withdrawal of money from Provident Fund and to pay salary through salary register. In such circumstance, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6264 of 1996 challenging the order of the District Elementary Educational Officer -in -charge, Palayamcottai and obtained stay order on 15.5.1996. Thereafter according to the petitioner they sent a letter dated 6.4.1996 to the District Educational Officer requesting him to cancel the salary sent for the Headmistress and requested him to send the salary through the management of the School Committee only. Against the dismissal from service, she approached the District Educational Officer and Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Alankulam as if she is entitled to attend the School and function as Headmistress and she was prevented by the School Committee. Therefore the Additional Assistant Educational Officer, Alankulam acting on the complaint of the Headmistress (second respondent) dated 15.4.1996 passed an order by his proceedings dated 15.4.1996 addressed to Additional Tahsildar, Veerakeralampudur, directing him to give protection to her. Since the said authority has no jurisdiction to pass such proceedings the petitioner was constrained to file W.P. No. 5715 of 1996 and this Court was pleased to order stay of the said proceedings on 26.4.1996.