PATTISAPU SATYANARAYANA Vs. PULAGA APPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act the point raised by the petitioner is that since his services as a teacher in tr?e school which was managed by the defendant have been terminated without notice, he is entitled to be paid the arrears of salary plus three months salary in lieu of notice to which he is entitled under rule 13 of the Rules relating to Elementary Schools framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920.

(2.) A few facts need to be mentioned. The plaintiff has been in the service of the defendant who was a teacher-manager of the Aided Elementary School at Pandrangi from 1st April, 1954 to 4th August, 1954. It is alleged by the defendant that within a short time after joining the service the plaintiff began to act in a way detrimental to the interests of the school and that those acts of the plaintiff were calculated to bring about the closure of the school itself. According to the defendant while he was away undergoing training, the plaintiff who was acting as the headmaster suddenly removed 16 pupils out of a strength of 60 pupils from the rolls and sought to justify it by pointing out that the pupils absented themselves. The plaintiff also removed an assistant teacher, viz., D. Kannayya and without prior consent of the manager appointed another person in his place. On these allegations Exhibit B-4 was issued on 4th August, 1954, to the plaintiff and without awaiting any explanation, Exhibit A-1, order of dismissal, was also sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on the very same day. The plaintiff thereupon sought service elsewhere and has filed the suit which gave rise to this revision petition claiming Rs. 246-9-6 towards arrears of salary and three months' salary in lieu of notice.

(3.) The learned District Munsif, Chodavaram, found as a fact that as alleged by the defendant the plaintiff removed from the rolls 16 pupils and also appointed one D.S. Narayana who had acted in the place of Kannayya for at least two days and that the permission of the teacher-manager, viz., respondent, has not been sought therefor. The learned District Munsif therefore found that the plaintiff could be found fault for misconduct and in the view that the dismissal could be without notice, dismissed the suit without costs.