A. Cruz Arockiasamy v. The Director of School Education Chennai – 62

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated 09..6..2008Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. No. 1907 of 1998A. Cruz Arockiasamy.. Petitionervs.1.The Director of School EducationChennai – 62.The Correspondent Little Flower Higher Secondary SchoolSalem.. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seekingfor issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords of the second respondent in their proceedings No. Nil dated11.7.1997 and quash the same and direct the second respondent toreinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner: Mr. S. KamadevanFor Respondent 1: Mr. P. Muthukumar, GAFor Respondent 2: Mr. B.T. SeshadriO R D E RHeard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties andperused the records.2.The writ petition is filed against the order dated 11.7.1997passed by the second respondent School terminating the petitioner fromthe services of the second respondent School. The second respondentis a minority school having the protection of Article 30(1) of theConstitution. The petitioner was working as a P.G. Assistant(Botany) since the year 1979. During February 1997, the petitionerwas afflicted with jaundice and applied for leave from 01.02.1997 to15.02.1997. This was intimated to the School by a telegram followedby a letter. The petitioner wanted a further extension of 15 daysand it resulted in the school making alternative arrangement forconducting the Botany Practical Examination which was held on17.02.1997. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Without reporting for duty by producing proper fitnesscertificate, the petitioner went to the Practical Examination Hall andstarted signing the Record Note Books of three students. Thepetitioner was given a memo questioning his conduct and he refused toreceive the said memo and walked out of the Examination Hall. He,once again, sent a telegram on 28.02.1997 seeking for extension ofleave. The said leave request was not supported by any MedicalCertificate and, therefore, a charge-sheet dated 04.4.1997 was givento the petitioner containing six charges. The letter sent to thepetitioner came back unserved. 4.Thereafter, the second respondent appointed an Advocate ofSalem to conduct a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer informedthe date of enquiry both by registered post and by ordinary post andthe postal covers came back with an endorsement 'refused'. TheEnquiry Officer, once again, informed the petitioner to file hisdocuments and statements on or before 26.5.1997 and that the enquirywill be held on 30.5.1997. The letter was sent by Certificate ofPosting and the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry on 30.5.1997and it was adjourned to 07.6.1997. Even though the said date wasintimated to the petitioner, he did not attend the enquiry on theadjourned date. This made the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiryex parte in which statement of witnesses were recorded and documentswere marked. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was sent to thepetitioner. But the postal cover came back with an endorsement 'notclaimed'. Thereafter, the second respondent passed an order dated11.7.1997 and sent the same by registered post. Even that covercontaining the termination order came back 'unserved' Thepetitioner suppressing all these information, filed a writ petitionbefore this Court being W.P. No. 13759 of 1997 seeking for a directionto furnish the copy of the termination order. 5.On notice from this Court, the second respondent producedthe registered postal cover addressed to the petitioner. The saidcover was opened in the open Court and the petitioner was handed overwith the original termination order. The writ petition was closedafter recording the same, by an order dated 05.12.1997. It wasthereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challengingthe order of termination. 6.The writ petition was admitted on 18.02.1998. However,subsequently, the records were found missing. On complaint from thepetitioner's side, it was reconstructed and the matter was posted forfinal hearing. A detailed counter affidavit dated 16.5.1998 wasalso filed by the second respondent justifying the termination of thepetitioner. The second respondent also filed the original recordscontaining all the communications sent to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.Mr. Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the order of termination was not a speaking order and the findingof the Enquiry Officer was not even discussed in the order. In theaffidavit, he also made an averment stating that none of theproceedings were served on the petitioner including the terminationorder. However, the Exs. M.1 to M.28 filed before the Enquiry Officerwere produced, in original, before this Court by Mr. B.T. Seshadri,learned counsel for the second respondent. 8.It is seen from the records that the petitioner had adopteda hide and seek game in the matter of enquiry. He had deliberatelychosen not to claim any cover addressed to him and some postal coversbear the endorsement that they were refused by the petitioner.Even with regard to the termination order, the petitioner claims thathe was not served. It was given to him in the open Court when hefiled the earlier writ petition. The allegation made by the petitioneris without any substance. The termination order is a detailed orderpassed taking note of the conduct of the petitioner in not attendingthe enquiry. The charges made against the petitioner are very seriousand the petitioner has no satisfactory explanation for remainingabsent and coming to the school without proper fitness certificateand attending the practical examination for which he was notauthorised. 9.The second respondent even though a minority school, theenquiry conducted by them must conform to the minimum principles ofnatural justice. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in MeenglassTea Estate v. The Workmen [AIR 1963 SC 1719] has set out as to whatconstitutes minimum principles of natural justice in conducting adomestic enquiry. In the present case, those minimum principleshave been followed. 10.This Court vide its judgment in A. Casimir v. JointDirector of School Education and others[1996 Writ L.R. 470], afterfollowing the said decision, held that the parameters pointed out inMeenglass Tea Estate case (cited supra) must be followed even inrespect of minority institutions when conducting an enquiry.11.A Division Bench of this Court took a similar view vide itsdecision in C. Masanam v. Chief Educational Officer, Madurai andothers [2000 (3) M.L.J. 19]. The petitioner will have to blamehimself for not attending the enquiry to put forth his defence.Therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by the secondrespondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.Under these circumstances, the writ petition is misconceivedand accordingly, will stand dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1.The Director of School EducationChennai – 6.+1 cc to Mr.B.T.Seshadri, Advocate, SR.No.27578.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.27578.+2 cc to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.No.23312, 27876.ts (co)krd / 13.6.08W.P. No. 1907 of 1998