ORDER: This Court ordered issuance of rule on 17.8.1999. The respondents have been served. On behalf of the second respondent a counter has been filed. With the consent for either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr.K.Elango, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned counsel for Mrs.A.V.Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 6.7.1999 in suspending the petitioner.

4.Respondent’s case: Against the petitioner, a Secondary-Grade Assistant in the second respondent school eleven others a crime was registered by one Sagayamary for alleged offences under Secs.147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, the overt act alleged being that the petitioner handed over a match box to the fourth accused. The petitioner was taken to custody and enlarged on bail on 22.6.1999. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station reported the arrest of the petitioner and custody to the second respondent- School. Based upon such report, the petitioner was suspended.

5. The petitioner claims that he is innocent in respect of the alleged criminal complaint, which is pending investigation. The petitioner had been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 6.7.1999 as a criminal case is under investigation and he was placed under deemed suspension from 19.6.1999 and until further orders. The order of suspension is being challenged in this writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the present order of suspension placing the petitioner under suspension proceed on the premise that a criminal case is pending or an investigation is pending, which contingency is not provided for in the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulations) Act and the Rules framed thereunder to suspend and therefore the action is without jurisdiction and authority. It is further contended that the order of suspension had not been passed by the School Committee. Nor the School Committee had taken a decision to place the petitioner under suspension. But it has been passed without reference to school committee. It is also contended that the order of suspension has been passed without application of mind.

7. Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Act to suspend the petitioner or to hold that the petitioner is deemed to have been placed under suspension on the ground that a criminal case has been registered or pending investigation against him or pending or taken to custody and behind the bars for more than 48 hours. Such a wide contention has been raised.

8. A counter has been filed by the second respondent. It was reported to the second respondent that the petitioner is involved in an incident that took place on 18.6.1999 and consequently a crime has been registered against the petitioner and others for offences under Secs.147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. with eight others. The petitioner was arrested on 19.6.1999 and was remanded. The petitioner was enlarged on bail only on 22.6.1999. The Sub Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station reported the said incident and on receipt of the said communication, the School Committee met on 6.7.1999 at 10.00 a.m. and resolved to suspend the petitioner from service in view of the pendency of a criminal proceeding against the petitioner.

9. The resolution passed by the School Committee was communicated by the second respondent on 6.7.1999 to the petitioner. The criminal case is still under investigation. The alleged offences for which the petitioner had been implicated being attempt to set fir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document