CORRESPONDENT, SRI CHAKRAVARTHY INTERNATIONAL MATRICULATION ACADEMY; PRESIDENT, CHAKRAVARTHY INTERNATIONAL MATRICULATION ACADEMY; CHAKRAVARTHY INTERNATIONAL MATRICULATION ACADEMY; MRS T J MANJULADEVI Vs. T J MANJULADEVI; STATE OF TAMILNADU; DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION; INSPECTOR OF MATRICULATION SCHOOLS; GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Correspondent, President and the Management of Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy, have preferred this Writ Appeal against the order dated 20.4.2000 in Writ Petition No. 17346 of 1997, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the said Writ Petition preferred by the first respondent herein, namely Mrs. T.J. Manjuladevi and directed the appellants-Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy to pay her all back-wages and attendant benefits and other monetary benefits in lumpsum in Demand Draft, treating her as she has been in continuous service of the appellants-Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy.

(2.) As the Writ Appeal can be disposed of on a short question, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.

(3.) The first respondent-T.J. Manjuladevi (writ petitioner) who was the Principal of the School in question (Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy), was placed under suspension on 22.1.1992 and a charge-memo was issued on 6.5.1992. According to the appellants, after receipt of her show cause reply, dated 15.5.1992, a domestic enquiry was conducted on 5.9.1992, in which the first respondent participated. On 15.9.1992, though she appeared before the enquiry officer, but left out of the enquiry proceedings, alleging that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. Again, a notice was served on her to participate in the enquiry on 19.9.1992, but she did not choose to attend the enquiry. The charge(s) having been found proved, she was removed from service, vide order dated 23.9.1992, against which the first respondent herein preferred an appeal before the third respondent-Director of School Education.