Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 397
2003(3) Supreme 147
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Chennai High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Secretary, School Committee, Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School -Appellant
versus
The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6782 of 2001
Decided on 2-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : L. Nageshwara Rao, Sr. Advocate, R. Sudhakar, Senthil Jagadeesan and V. Ramasubramanian, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Ram Kumar, V. Balaji, P.N. Ramalingam and Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
The order of the authorities declining to accord approval of dismissal of employee does not suffer from any infirmity. However, its directions for back wages in its entirety needs modification as indicated in this judgment.
Headnote:Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973-Section 22-5th respondent-Employee was deficient in teaching as well as irregular-Show cause-Proposal for termination-Approval rejected by authority on ground that termination is disproportionate to the charges-Upheld by High Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether order of the authorities declining to accord approval suffers from any infirmity? (No)-Whether direction for the back wages in its entirety is justified? (No)-That directions modified-Appeal disposed of accordingly.
Held : The order of the authorities declining to accord approval does not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court was justified in declining to interfere. Another point urged by learned counsel for the appellant was that the direction for the back wages in its entirety is not justified because the employee absented from duty without sanctioned leave for long periods and even on same dates he went away during the school period and even abandoned the classes on several days. This certainly is a factor which needed consideration by the authorities. Expect for the enumerated categories for other actions no approval is necessary. Authority acting under Section 22 could not have indicated any other aspect. Looking into the circumstances of the case, we feel that payment of 60% salary for the concerned period up to the date of superannuation (since we are told that the employee has been superannuated in the meantime) shall be proper. The undisputed position is that the charges have been proved. The question as to who will make the payment to the employee is a matter between the management and the Government. (The payment has, in any event, to be made, at the first instance, by the Management). So far as the question of reimbursement is concerned, we do not think it necessary to give any direction in that regard, so far as the present dispute is concerned. No further orders are to be passed in the application for modification of earlier interim orders passed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Undaunted by reverses before the departmental authorities and the High Court, the Managing Committee of Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the management ) has filed this appeal. The controversy lies within a narrow compass and factual position being undisputed, a brief reference thereto would suffice.
2. The 5th respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee ) was appointed as P.G. Assistant for teaching English in 1978. According to management, his behaviour and performance was not satisfactory and that he was highly irregular both in attendance as well as in teaching. A memorandum was sent to him and to another teacher on 14.1.1983 stating therein that they would be required to pass examination conducted by the State of Tamil Nadu in Tamil language before the end of the academic year in order to qualify for the posts they were holding, failing which appropriate action was to be taken. From 1.12.1984, the employee did not attend school. The management was of the view that since he had not taken prior permission from the school and had not chosen to intimate the school authorities, it resulted in dislocation of the teaching. Prior to his long absence, he had not been taking classes regularly. The students were put to grave and irreparable loss and hardship. Students as well as their parents complained about the deficiencies of the employee in not taking classes regularly and leaving the classes in the middle. He had also not completed portions of the lessons for the 11th standard. Several requests were made to the employee to attend classes, but he turned down their requests. On 29.8.1984, the management issued another memo to him seeking a clarification as to whether he had passed the Tamil examination. On 31.8.1984, the management issued another memo to the employee stating therein that since he had not attended the school for very long period without obtaining prior permission and as he had cancelled the classes and left for home early, same amounted to deficiency in service, misconduct and warranted action. Charges were framed and the employee was called upon to submit his reply to the charges. Another memo was issued on 30.10.1984 containing similar charges. Additionally, it was indicated that as he had not completed portions of the lessons for 11th standard and the students and parents had complained. He was required to show cause in respect of the allegations. On 24.1.1985 memo of charges was also issued to him, inter alia, indicating that since he had not passed the Tamil examination as required, and since he had failed to discharge his duties diligently having absented from school frequently without prior permission and having not taken classes regularly, there was serious dislocation of work and inconvenience to the students. On 13.3.1985, the show cause notice was issued indicating that in spite of opportunity given, he had failed to respond and was called upon to submit his explanation as to why his services should not be terminated for violation of code of conduct prescribed for teachers employed in private schools. Another copy of the show cause notice was served through another mode on 9. 4.1985. The employee did not respond to the show cause notice. Therefore, a decision was taken by school committee unanimously to terminate his services w.e.f. 1.12.1984, the date from which he had stopped attending the school. On 9.5.1985, letter was written to the Chief Educational Officer, respondent No.3 (in short the CEO ) seeking his approval for termination of employee s services in terms of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). On 29.8.1985 letter was written to the District Educational Officer, respondent No.4 (in short the DEO ) requesting for early action in the matter.
3. The DEO issued a notice to the employee but there was no response thereto. On 3.12.1985, DEO sent a
