N.K.T. National College of Education for WomenRepresented by Secretary v. Joint Director of Collegiate EducationChennai Region

JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by Prabha Sridevan,J.)The Management of a College governed by the Tamil Nadu PrivateColleges (Regularized) Act (‘the Act’ in short) issued show causenotice, conducted an enquiry and decided that the second respondentshould be dismissed from service in view of proved grave misconduct.Therefore, they applied for prior approval. Approval was not given,but the order did not indicate whether the authorities had appliedtheir mind to the proved misconduct. 2.A vexed question that arises often before us is the rightof the employer to proceed against the employee after the retirement. 3.In 1997 WLR 120 (N.M. Somasundaram Vs. The Director Generalof Police) the First Bench annulled the disciplinary proceedings in acharge of corruption “with a heavy heart” and they said “We findourselves helpless in the matter”. That was a case where orders havenot been obtained from the Government or the competent authority fornot permitting the delinquent officer from retiring. The DivisionBench of our Court observed that if care and caution is not taken bythe authorities and if casual and cavalier approach is made by theauthorities, the Government servant charged with serious misconductmay go scotfree. Disciplinary proceedings are quashed becauseappropriate orders are not obtained for not permitting the delinquentofficer from retiring or because there are no rules for continuingthe proceedings after the age of superannuation. Two of the reasonswhy this happens is, a person may take advantage of this legalposition and deliberately commit misconduct which causes huge loss tothe Government or the authorities on the eve of the retirement andwalk away happily; or the delinquent officer with the connivance ofhis subordinates or colleagues may postpone the initiation of chargememo until the very last moment and thus go scot-free or thirdly hemay challenge the initiation of disciplinary proceedings at everystage and obtain interim orders from Court and attempt to goscotfree. If even one officer manages to evade his just desserts byany of these reasons, then there is a signal failure of goodgovernance. The organization may be the State; it may be aneducational institution; it may be a public sector undertaking. Itdoes not matter. If the system allows the wrong one to escape bythese means then there is a gaping hole in the system. In this case,the proceedings were concluded and yet the School is hopeless.4.Now we will look at the facts of the case. The appellant,N.K.T. National College of Education for Women is one of theeducational institution established by N.K.Thirumalachariar, aleading member of the Bar. Several educational institutions areadministered by the Society founded by him and the appellant is one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such. Earlier, the Headmaster of a School administered by theSociety committed irregularities. Therefore, he was not elected tothe office in 1993. Peeved by this, he allowed intruders tointerfere in the administration which nearly destroyed the society.W.P.No.10525 of 1998 was filed and the genuine committee started tofunction with effect from 20-08-1998. There was a Principal of theappellant during the period 1993-98. The second respondent was ateacher who was reporting to the Principal. According to theappellant, she took advantage of the confusion created by theHeadmaster of one of the Schools established by the society and sheproclaimed herself to be the Principal. Though she did not have thenecessary qualification she usurped the powers. In 1999, afternormalcy was restored and the genuine committee started functioning,a charge sheet was issued to the second respondent setting out themisconduct. There were as many as 12 charges. Briefly they includetampering with the attendance register; knocking the Principal’s roomand preventing the legally appointed Principal from functioning;signing the pay-bills as if she was the Principal which was negativedby the Joint Director of Collegiate Education with the result collegestaff could not be paid in time; connivance with certain persons;acts disrepute and damage to the institution; operation of bankaccount without due authorization and collecting funds from studentspromising to give admission; abusing the Principal by use of filthylanguage. An explanation was given by the second respondent on 14-05-1999, that was unsatisfactory. Thereafter one Mrs. JayakothaiPillai was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. When the enquiry was inprogress some lapses were pointed out by the second respondent.Therefore, the appellants’ committee examined the objection and foundthat since the Enquiry Officer was not trained and was unaware oflegal intricacies, she had committed certain proceduralirregularities. Therefore, the Enquiry that was conducted till thatdate was set aside and a de novo enquiry was ordered on 03-12-1999and a new Enquiry Officer was appointed. Though this was to heradvantage, the second respondent filed W.P.No.19952 of 1999,which wasdisposed of on 24-12-1999 by this Court holding that the order of thede novo enquiry was correct. The second respondent prayed that theenquiry may be deferred because of her visit to United States ofAmerica. She filed an affidavit of undertaking to participate in theenquiry after she returned. Despite the fact, she had agreed toparticipate in the de novo enquiry, she filed W.P.No.17303 of 2000challenging the de novo enquiry. She protracted the matter as muchas possible and delayed the process of enquiry. Finally, the EnquiryOfficer submitted his report. A notice was issued on 09-11-2001,wherein the appellant informed the second respondent that since shehas been found guilty of all the charges by the Enquiry Officer, itwas decided to terminate her services and she should give reasons whythe decision should not be confirmed. On 16-11-2001, the Courtdirected the parties to maintain status quo. But, the appellantcould not proceed further, since the matter was not heard. Theappellant filed an application to vacate the interim order of status https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quo. On 30-04-2002, the second respondent attained the age of super-annuation. The appellant wrote to the second respondent on 26-04-2002that her super-annuation would be deferred. Only on 30-01-2003,W.P.No.22046 of 2001 was disposed of, holding that the fourthrespondent is permitted to proceed with his further proceedings fromthe stage of giving show cause notice as the petitioner has alreadybeen served with the notice of the Enquiry Officer. The reference tothe fourth respondent is to the appellant herein and the reference tothe petitioner is to the second respondent herein. It must be notedthat by that time, the respondent had attained the age ofsuperannuation. So thereafter, he submitted an interim explanationon 04-03-2003. The second respondent gave a final explanation on 18-03-2003 which was considered by the Committee on 30-04-2003. Theyresolved to dismiss her with effect from 31-05-2002 and applied forapproval. Under Section 19(1) of the Act, the Director of CollegiateEducation had by its proceedings dated 27-06-2003 delegated thepowers to the first respondent. The first respondent by proceedingsdated 15-07-2003 decided that the second respondent ought to havebeen superannuated on 30-04-2002 and the extension of time till 31-05-2002 without permission of the first respondent was not correctand therefore the order of dismissal taking effect from 31-05-2002could not be upheld and she ought to have retired with effect from30-04-2002. There is no indication that the second respondent hadtaken note of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, theCommittee met and resolved to amend the application for approval andthey forwarded a letter dated 17-07-2003 amending the request togrant approval for dismissal from 30-04-2003(the date ofsuperannuation). The respondents rejected it by saying that there isno possibility of revising the request. The saga did not end here.There are other writ petitions which will be dealt with after.5.The learned Single Judge concluded that it was theappellant who was at fault for not bringing it to the notice of theCourt that the respondent had retired on 30-04-2003 and that thefirst respondent was justified in refusing the approval.6.The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Somayaji, submitted that atno point of time had the appellant ever committed any lapse. Thesecond respondent had committed such acts of misconduct that she verynearly brought a very reputable institution to a standstill. Hesubmitted that the signature of a very senior member of the Bar wasforged by the persons, with whom the second respondent had associatedherself. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is only bypersuasive effort of this Court in earlier proceedings that theSchool came back to the hands of the genuine committee. 7.The learned Senior counsel submitted that there was noprogress after the Enquiry Report was filed and the second show causenotice only because of the status quo ordered by this Court. Thoughan application had been filed for vacating the status quo, in spite https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of best efforts it could not be listed. So only on 30-01-2003 finalorders were passed that the matter should proceed from the stage ofsecond show cause notice in W.P.No.22046 of 2002 filed by the secondrespondent. 8.The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that no partyshould suffer for the fault of the Court and it is only because ofthe pendency of the Court proceedings and the interim orders, thatthe hands of the appellants were tied. The learned Senior Counselsubmitted that the authorities had not exercised the discretionarypower granted to them under Section 19(1) of the Act. On 26-04-2002,the College had written to the respondent that they had filed apetition to vacate the stay and that the second respondent is notpermitted to retire on 30-04-2002. She was informed that her replyto the issue of extension of service would determine the timelypayment of salary. The respondent informed the appellant that shewas not interested in extension and that her retiral benefits shouldbe settled at the earliest. She accepted the order passed by thisCourt permitting the fourth respondent to proceed with furtherproceedings from the stage of giving show cause notice. 9.The counsel for the respondent as well as the learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the second respondent supported theorder of the first respondent. We must remember that W.P.No.22406 of2001 was filed by the second respondent to quash the enquiry report.This Court did not grant her that relief, but only sent it back forfurther action after the second show cause notice. So the enquiryofficer’s report stands. It was not quashed. Both the partiesaccepted this order. 10.On 13-05-2003, the College addressed a letter to theDirector of Collegiate Education, through the Joint Director ofCollegiate Education informing them that the Minutes of the Meetingof the Governing Body and College Committee were enclosed and thepermission under Section 19(1) of the Act is sought. The Director ofCollegiate Education informed the College on 27-06-2003 that it wouldbe the Joint Director of Collegiate Education who would take thedecision. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education by hisproceedings dated 15-07-2003 has not addressed his mind, to the factthat she was subject to disciplinary proceedings, or that the EnquiryOfficer had submitted the findings or that the Management had decidedto dismiss her in view of the very serious charges proved againsther. He glibly stated that the above mentioned lecturer was about toretire on 30-04-2002 and the College had extended her service withoutobtaining prior permission and since the permission sought forremoval from service from 31-05-2002 is not accepted, final ordersfor pensionary benefits should be passed. The second respondent hadin the meantime filed W.P.No.4557 of 2002 for grant of retiralbenefits. On 16-01-2003, the Director of Collegiate Educationdirected the Director to look into the legal entitlement of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner on her reaching the age of superannuation and pass ordersof disbursement in view of the order in W.P.No.4557 of 2002. Thencomes the impugned letter from the Director of Collegiate EducationAnx-35, Rc.No.9547/D4/2001 dated 12-08-2003, which we must extract:“As the Joint Director of Collegiate Education ofChennai Region has passed final orders under section 19(1)of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act 1976 inrespect of Tmt. G.Premakumari, S.G. Lecturer in Tamil forremoval of her service with effect from 31-05-2002 afterreaching the age of superannuation, there is no provisionunder this Act to reconsider the issue. Hence the requestof the Secretary to reconsider to approve the removal ofservice with effect from 30-04-2002 cannot be compliedwith.”11.Section 19(1) of the Act provides that no teacher can bedismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his payment beotherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competentauthority. Section 19(2) provides whether such a proposal iscommunicated to the competent authority, the authority shall approvesuch dismissal, removal, reduction in rank if it is satisfied thatthere are adequate and reasonable grounds for such process. So theauthority shall grant approval if there are adequate reasons. Theauthority cannot refuse to grant approval without reasons. Reasonsare the check on arbitrariness and unbridled exercise of power. 12.The Directorate of Collegiate Education has refusedapproval because the approval is for a date which is beyond the ageof retirement and directed the College to forward the pensionproposals. Again on 05-08-2003, the appellant had written a letterwhere they have enclosed the Minutes of the Committee, which showsthat they should be permitted to dismiss her from 30-04-2002. Thisis virtually an amendment of the earlier request. Earlier, they hadasked that they should be permitted to remove her with effect from31-05-2002. The authorities refused. 13.The second respondent then filed W.P.No.26413 of 2003mwhere the first respondent is the Director of Collegiate Education.The second respondent is the original Joint Director of CollegiateEducation. The third respondent is the appellant. The prayer wasfor directing the respondents to settle her retiral benefits. Thiswas disposed of on 22-09-2003. From the order it is seen that thematter has been taken up for hearing by consent at the admissionstage. The learned Government Pleader had taken notice for the firstand second respondents. The third respondent was neither served norheard and the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the thirdrespondent-School is not sending the proposal claiming the benefit.So a direction was given against the third respondent to send theproposals claiming the pensionary benefit. This is an order which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has been passed behind the third respondent’s back and which hascaused much damage and prejudice to the third respondent,considering the facts and circumstances of the case. From 1999, theappellant had been fighting the battle. The appellant has beenthwarted, restricted and defeated by continuous writ petitions filedby the respondent and finally without hearing the appellant who isthe person who has a say in whether the second respondent is entitledto retiral benefits, an order has been passed in their absence tosend the proposal. Immediately, the Joint Director of CollegiateEducation addressed a letter to the College informing them that thepension proposals should be immediately sent without any furtherdelay. The appellants have come to this Court seeking relief. We areunable to see any lapse on the part of the appellant at any stage.The show cause notice was given on 30-03-1999 which was almost threeyears before the date of superannuation. Notwithstanding two orthree writ petitions filed by the second respondent and her trip toUSA the enquiry got concluded on November 9,2001. This is fivemonths before the date of superannuation. The appellants enclosed acopy of the report and asked her to give reasons why she should notbe terminated. She immediately filed W.P.No.22046 of 2001 andstalled all further progress in the proceedings. On 16-11-2001,status quo was directed to be maintained by this Court. So until2003, they could not do anything. In 2003, the Writ Petition wasdisposed of and the appellant was directed to continue from the stageof second show cause notice. The Committee found her explanationunsatisfactory and wanted to dismiss her from service and so theyasked for approval. The charges were proved. The misconduct wasgrave. As on date, the disciplinary proceedings have not beenchallenged. 14.We will extract the charges for understanding the factualposition. “1.Whereas it is reported that on 6.4.98 you haveclaimed yourself to have been appointed as the Principal ofthe College by one N.S. Viswanathan inspite of you havingbeen fully aware that the said N.S. Viswanathan had nojurisdiction to issue such appointment.2.Whereas it is reported that you have tamperedtwice attendance register for the teaching staff of thecollege knowing well that the attendance register of theteaching staff which is an essential document of thecollege to be submitted at the time of pension proposalsetc. by writing twice unauthorisedly that you have joinedduty as Principal on 6.4.1998 and 1.6.1998.3.Whereas it is reported that you have furtherprevented the legally appointed Principal Dr. SuseelaKumari Vyas to discharge her duties by keeping the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Principal’s room locked on 1.6.98 and keeping all the keysof the College till 28.8.98.4.Whereas it is reported that you have permittedthe entry of persons unconnected with the Institutionwhereby you have actively assisted goondaisam andhooliganism inside the College Campus thereby leading to acomplete standstill in the College administration between1.6.98 and 28.8.98.5.Whereas it is brought to the notice of theManagement that you inspite of being aware that thePrincipal of the College Dr. Suseela Kumari Vyas, has beinggranted order by the Honourable High Court to enable her tocontinue to function as Princpal, you with activeassistance and connivance of your husband Narayanan who isnot in any way connected with the College administrationprevented the Principal form discharging her officialduties between 1.6.98 and 28.8.98.6.Whereas it is reported that inspite of you beingfully aware of the legal position that the Principal of theCollege having been validly appointed and duly approved bythe Department cannot be replaced unless a person is dulyselected and appointed after undergoing the Selectionprocedures per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu PrivateColleges Regulation Act; and the UGC Guidelines and dulyapproved by the director of Collegiate Education, you haveclaimed yourself to be the Principal of the College andcontinued to do so inspite of the Judgment of theHonourable High Court, thereby grossly violating the Codeof Conduct. 7.Whereas it is brought to the notice of theManagement that you had prevented the Principal fromrepresenting the College when UGC Review Committee visitedthe College to grant extension of Autonomy for the Collegeon 16.7.98 and that you had misrepresented as the Principalthereby giving an impression to the visiting UGC ReviewCommittee a feeling that the College lacked properadministration which act is highly detrimental to thegoodwill of the College, enjoyed all these years and yourdefiance of rightful authority resulted in bringing badname to the College.8.Whereas it is seen from the records namely thestaff grant stated that you have signed the pay bill forthe months of June, July and August 1998 claiming yourselfto be the Principal which was negatived by the Joint https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Director of Collegiate Education as a result of which theCollege staff could not be paid salary on time.9. Whereas it is reported that you have activelyinvolved yourself and connived with Mrs. ShakunthalaSundaram, J. Balan, S.K. Sundaram and other group of badelements to cause disrepute and damage to the Institutionsolely with malafide intentions and also interfered in theadmission of students for the year 1998-99.10. Whereas it is reported that you have called uponthe Office Staff Mrs. Vimala Bai (Junior Assistant) andMrs. Banumathi (Typist) to hand over the files relating tothe Foreign Students Exchange Programme, Examinationvoucher file and failed to return the same inspite of memodated 30.11.98 issued by the Management.11.Whereas it is reported and seen from the Bankrecords that you have operated the Bank Account of theCollege without due authorization and misrepresented andcollected funds from students promising to give admissions,inspite of you being well aware that you had nojurisdiction to do any admission and further it is seenfrom the records that you have misused your usurpedposition and operated the General Fund Account which couldbe operated only by the Secretary of the College Committee.12.Whereas it has been brought to the notice of theManagement you have abused the Principal on 1.6.98 by usingfilthy language and also joined hands with Mrs. ShakunthalaSundaram and J. Balan who insulted. Dr. Susila Kumar Vyasby using abusive languages at her.”If these charges are proved what is the valid or acceptable reasonfor the authorities to reject the approval under Section 19 of theAct. It is true that the appellant had made a mistake by seekingapproval for dismissal with effect from 31-05-2002. What wassubsequently asked was only a correction. We find that there istotal abdication of the powers vested under Section 19(1) in thiscase. The Joint Director of Collegiate Education has not at allapplied his mind to what was before him. He is not doing aministerial job. His order gives an advantage to the person who hasbeen found guilty of all charges, by expeditious settlement ofpension proposals. Perhaps this is another kind of “goldenhandshake”. “Retirement age past? No approval. Give benefits”. Wedo not think this is a proper exercise of discretion. 15.We can only feel anguish at the total non-application ofmind on the part of the authorities. No doubt, the power under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 19(1) is given to the authority to control arbitrariness inthe action of the Management. At the same time, care and cautionmust be taken by the authorities without letting the petitionerscotfree. 16.To show how the second respondent has abused the process oflaw, we will give the sequences of various writ petitions which shehas filed:W.P.No.19952 of 1999 – challenging the de novo enquiry, disposedof on 24-12-1999 holding that the order of de novo enquiry wascorrect;W.P.No.17703 of 2000 – again challenging the de novo enquiryinspite of her giving an undertaking to co-operate in theearlier writ petition;W.P.No.22046 of 2001 against the notice issued by the Committeeon receipt of the enquiry officer’s report. It is in this writthat status quo was ordered;W.P.No.12768 of 2002 for stay of an order of suspension that waspassed for another act of misconduct;W.P.No.4557 of 2002 claiming disbursement of her pensionarybenefits;W.P.No.26413 of 2003 again claiming retiral benefits in whichorders were passed without hearing the appellant herein. The appellant is not bound to comply with the order dated 22-09-2003,in W.P.No.26413 of 2003 since that order was passed without hearinghim. In this case, there was no retrospective retrenchment ofservice. All that the appellant requests is that the secondrespondent’s service would come to an end on 30-04-2002 not onaccount of superannuation but by way of dismissal and they seek theapproval of the authorities. Materials have been placed before theauthorities so that they may satisfy themselves if approval must begranted. As per Section 19(1) of the Act, if there are materials forsatisfaction, the authority shall grant approval. The applicationfor approval under Section 19(1) was put on hold because of thepetitioner’s own action i.e., her writ petitions and the interimapplications. For that, the appellant cannot suffer. Nor can theappellant be made to suffer by an order that is passed by this Courtin their absence mulling them with liability to forward the pensionproposal in respect of a person who was found guilty of gravemisconduct. 17.We called for the records in W.P.No.26413 of 2003. Apartfrom vague statements that she was proceeded departmentally allegingbaseless allegations etc., she has not stated in this affidavit thaton 15-09-2003, the date on which she has sworn to the affidavit, theCollege had already decided to terminate her services since she hasbeen found guilty of all charges and that the College had in factforwarded the proposal for approval. Had the Court been informed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the disciplinary proceedings had in fact come to an end and infact she had been called upon to show cause why she should not beterminated and that the Court in an earlier writ petition haddirected the appellant to proceed from the stage of second show causenotice, perhaps the impugned order might not have been passed. Butas it is, this order that has been passed and especially withouthearing the affected party. Therefore, the appellant can rightlyignore that.18.The appellant prays for quashing of the order dated 15-07-2003 of the Deputy Director in charge of Zonal College Educationwhich we have extracted as confirmed by the order dated 12-08-2003 bywhich the Joint Director informed the appellant that there is noprovision under the Act to reconsider the issue. The order dated 15-07-2003, does not show any application of mind regarding thecircumstances under which the appellant was forced to order dismissaland seek approval and therefore, the same must be quashed. Asregards the order dated 12-08-2003, the authorities fail to see whatthe appellant were seeking was approval to dismiss the secondrespondent with effect from the date on which she attainssuperannuation. 19.Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges(Regulation) Act, 1976 reads as follows:“Where the proposal to dismiss, remove or reduce inrank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacheror other person employed in any private college iscommunicated to the competent authority, that authorityshall, if it is satisfied that there are adequate andreasonable grounds for such proposal, approve suchdismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination ofappointment.”This is identical to Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu RecognisedPrivate Schools Recognition Act, 1973 and in 2003 (5) SCC 200(Secretary, School Committee, Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary SchoolVs. Government of T.N.), the Supreme Court at paragraph No.10 hasheld thus:“10. Though attempt was made to contend that at thestage of consideration under Sections 22(1) and 22(2) andRule 17(1), there is no scope for looking into theproportionality of punishment aspect, the same is clearlywithout any substance. What an authority is required to doat that stage is to see whether the proposed punishment isto be approved. Obviously, it has to consider whether thepunishment as proposed is a proper one; otherwise there isno need for seeking its approval. The crucial words used inSub-section (2) of Section 22 are "adequate and reasonable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ grounds" for the proposal. The proposal relates todismissal, removal or reduction in rank or otherwisetermination of appointment of any teacher or any otherperson employed in a private school. While consideringwhether adequate and reasonable grounds exist for givingapproval, the authority is certainly required to look intothe gravity of the proved charges and whether thepunishment as proposed commensurates with it. Any otherinterpretation would make the question of approval anexercise in futility.”20.We are quashing the order because the authority has notapplied its mind to see whether the proposed punishment is to beapproved. The Supreme Court has observed that they should look intothe gravity of the proved charges and whether the punishment proposedis commensurate with it and in Paragraph No.11 of the same judgment,the Supreme Court also observed that since the proposed action is apunishment, “there is an inbuilt requirement to see whether thequantum of punishment commensurates with the gravity of the provedcharges”. The Supreme Court also held that at the stage ofconsideration under Section 22, the teacher does not get anyopportunity for presenting his side of the case. That opportunity isprovided in Section 23 and 24 of the Private Schools Act which arealmost identical to Section 20 and 21 of this Act. Therefore, thesecond respondent cannot at this stage contend that at the stage ofapproval she must be heard for a decision regarding the quantum ofpunishment. This is something that the authority will have to do. “12. The second plea of learned counsel for themanagement was even it the authority had jurisdiction,there was no application of mind, as relevant factors havenot been looked into. The basis duties of a teacher andwhat is expected from him were highlighted. It wasstrenuously contended that the welfare of the students'aspect was not even taken note of.13. The role a teacher plays in shaping the career andfuture of a student needs no great emphasis. In oldentimes, a teacher was considered equal to God. He isrequired to ensure good conduct of his pupils in additionto teaching lessons to them. The situation has not changednow so far as this basis concept is concerned. Butnevertheless, the number of such teachers it sadly on thedecline, and instead of tribe of such teachers increasing,it is alarming decreasing. A teacher is required to removedarkness and ignorance from the minds of students. Butpresent day experiences show that the teachers arethemselves ill-equipped and take their jobs very casually.No doubt, there are exceptions and those teachers whobelong to the exception category are trying their best to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ make up the deficiency of their brothers in service. In thehands of these ill-equipped teachers, the destiny of thestudents does not get moulded in the way it ought to be.The centers of learning are becoming trade and money-makingbusiness centers. Learned counsel for the appellant iscorrect in his submission that welfare of the students hasto receive utmost priority. But his submission that therewas no application of mind by the authorities to thematerials has not borne out from the records.” 21.In that case, the misconduct was continued absence. Theauthority refused approval on the ground that the allegations werenot so grave as to warrant punishment like dismissal and presumptionwas refused and the Supreme Court therefore was of the opinion thatthe authorities had applied their mind and had come to a conclusionwith the proposed punishment was harsh and disproportionate. Thefollowing extract from Paragraph No.13 is also relevant:“Learned counsel for the appellant furthersubmitted that once the disciplinary authority comes to aview that there was adequate material for imposing aparticular punishment, the approving authority should notlightly interfere with the findings. This submission holdsgood only when the authority does not apply its mind to thematerials forming the foundation of the proposed action.When after consideration of the material, it comes to aconclusion that the proposed punishment is harsh ordisproportionate to the proved charges, the scope ofinterference with the finding is rather limited. This isbecause the approving authority has to consider whether theproved charges on the facts and the materials justify aparticular action. Since reasons have been given onconsideration of the materials, there is no scope forinterference.”22.In the present case, since the impugned order is devoid ofreasons for declining to grant approval except to state that the ageof superannuation has passed which for reasons given above, we holdas being unsustainable, it is quashed. All orders which wereconsequent to and subsequent to the order refusing to grant approvalwill have no effect, since we are quashing both the orders. Thematter is sent back to the first respondent to consider the requestfor approval under Section 19(1) and exercise the discretion asrequired and pass orders in accordance with law within one month fromthe date of the order. All that we have said above are only to showthe extent to which there has been no application of mind by theauthorities. The authorities shall decide independently, whether theproved charges justify the particular decision and give reasons forthe orders that they pass. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.The writ appeal is allowed accordingly. However, therewill be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.glp Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo1.Joint Director of Collegiate EducationChennai Region, Chennai-1+ 1 cc to M/S. Muthumani Doraisami Advocate Sr.36740,+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader Sr.36873.Pre-delivery judgment in W.A.No.704 of 2008KSK(CO)EU 7.09.2009.