A RAJA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was working as a Secondary Grade School Teacher in the Bishop Corrie Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Chennai-1, represented by the 5th Respondent. THE said School has been administered by the 4th Respondent and it is a partly aided by the Government. THE 6th Respondent, the Head Master of the said School, on a complaint from the girl students of the said School, had issued a charge memo dated 28.11.1995, alleging that the Appellant had misbehaved with a girl student and abused his profession and failed to maintain discipline in the Class Room. For the said charge memo, the Appellant had submitted an explanation, denying the allegations. As the Management was not convinced with the said explanation, the Appellant was placed under suspension and enquiry was ordered. THE 7th Respondent was appointed as an Enquiry officer, who after conducting an enquiry, submitted a report, with a finding against the Appellant and thereafter the Appellant was duly terminated from service by order dated 25.3.1996.

(2.) AS against the dismissal of the Appellant by the Authority concerned, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the 2nd Respondent, who forwarded the same to the 3rd Respondent to dispose of the same, on merits. The 3rd Respondent/Appellate Authority, ignoring the defence set up by the Management that as they are a minority Institution, the appeal provision itself would not be applicable to the said institution, allowed the said appeal and directed that the Appellant should be reinstated in service mainly on the ground that the enquiry was commenced in the absence of the delinquent and that the delinquent was not allowed to cross-examine the girl students separately. The 3rd Respondent/Appellate Authority further relied upon the proposition that even though the Appellant was placed under suspension, he was not paid the subsistence allowance and the signatures of all the students in the earlier letter of complaint and the signatures in the enquiry proceedings were different. On the basis of the above said findings of the Appellate Authority/the 3rd Respondent, the Appellant herein issued a notice, stating that the 5th Respondent has not implemented the order of the 3rd Respondent dated 14.11.1996. Thereafter, the Appellant filed earlier WP.No.10773 OF 1997 TO implement the order passed by the 3rd Respondent and to reinstate the Appellate in service, with attendant benefits. The said writ petition was vehemently contested by the management/the respondents 4 to 6, who took a stand that the Management Institution is a minority Institution and that the 3rd Respondent had no authority to even entertain the appeal nor pass an order, on merits and that even if any order is passed by the said Appellate authority, the same need not be implemented, as it is without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE Appellant would challenge the validity of the dismissal order mainly on the grounds that the charges levelled against the Appellant were vague and that the enquiry was conducted in a prejudicial manner against the principles of natural justice. Apart from that, he had also raised a plea than even though the suspension period of the Appellant was continued beyond the period of two months, he was not paid the subsistence allowance and hence, the order of termination was illegal.