SECRETARY, RAMAKRISHNA MISSION HIGH SCHOOL Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION (SECONDARY); DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER; G GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the Secretary, Ramakrishna Mission High School (hereinafter referred to as 'R.K. Mission School') against the order dated 22.8.2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11972 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the R.K. Mission School and affirmed the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education), College Road, Chennai, the first respondent herein. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail.

(2.) The third respondent, who was a Teacher in the appellant-R.K. Mission School, was proceeded against departmentally for four charges, and he having been found guilty, the competent authority, viz., the Secretary of the R.K. Mission School, by order dated 17.7.2006, taking a lenient view, instead of terminating the services of the third respondent, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The third respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before the first respondent herein against the order of punishment of stoppage of two increments. On 31.12.2007, the first respondent passed an order to the effect that the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect granted to the third respondent by the School Secretary by his order dated 17.6.2006 is not accepted.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-R.K. Mission School referred to the charge memo, including the additional charge memo, wherein altogether four charges were levelled against the third respondent. It was submitted that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law after notice to the third respondent and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis of the evidence available on record, including the oral evidence. There being no infirmity, according to the learned Counsel, the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the first respondent herein, who is also the appellate authority, is uncalled for, which has not been appreciated by the learned single Judge.