Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3509
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
N. Nandhi
Versus
The Headmaster, Government High School, Thuthurmattam Kullakamby P.O., The Nilgiris & Others
Writ Petition No.16055 of 2006
Decided On : 07-11-2007
For the Petitioner:B. Ramamoorthy, Advocate. For the Respondents:E. Ranganayaki, Govt. Advocate.
Disciplinary action for serious misconduct, including absenteeism, drunken behavior, and destruction of school records, is justified to maintain discipline in the education system.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Education - F.R. 17 R.A. - [F.R. 17 R.A.] - The court discussed the charges of misconduct against a teacher, including absenteeism, drunken behavior, and destruction of school records. The court upheld the decision to withhold the teacher's increment for a year, considering the seriousness of the offenses and the need for setting an example as a teacher.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, faced charges of absenteeism, drunken behavior, and destruction of school records. The second respondent withheld the petitioner's increment for a year as a disciplinary action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions constituted serious misconduct, including absenteeism, drunken behavior, and destruction of school records. The court upheld the decision to withhold the petitioner's increment for a year, considering the seriousness of the offenses and the need for setting an example as a teacher.
Issues: The issues involved absenteeism, drunken behavior, and destruction of school records by the petitioner, and the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the second respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner were substantiated, and the disciplinary action of withholding the increment for a year was justified based on the seriousness of the offenses and the need for maintaining discipline in the education system.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
The writ petition is to call for the records of the second respondent, namely, the Chief Educational Officer, The Nilgiris, Ootacamund, Nilgiris District made in Na.Ka.No.11370/B2/92 dated 12.01.1995, peruse and set aside the same.
2. The facts arising out of this writ petition are as under:-
The petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Craft Instructor and joined duty on 16.03.1971. In the year 1992, when he was working in Government High School, Ambalamoola, he was not prompt in his work. Hence the parents of the students made many complaints against the petitioner. The Headmaster of that school also made a complaint against the petitioner to the Chief Educational Officer, the above mentioned second respondent. The complaint against the petitioner was that, on 22.09.1992 the petitioner absented himself from duty without forwarding leave letter and on earlier occasions he had already exhausted his 12 days casual leave. Thereafter there was another complaint given by the said Headmaster against the petitioner that the petitioner had created a scene on 110. 1992 in a drunken mood and destroyed the School Registers. The second respondent directed the petitioner to give an explanation against the petitioner in his proceedings dated 30.11.1992. The charges against the petitioner are:-
1. Absenting himself without leave application on 22.09.1992.
2. On 110. 1992, came in a drunken mood and disturbed the school records.
The petitioner had also given an explanation on 212. 1992 denying the allegations. The second respondent, by his proceedings dated 08.02.1993, passed an order suspending the petitioner from service pending enquiry on the charges against the petitioner. After the enquiry, the second respondent by order dated 16.03.1993 cancelled the suspension order and the petitioner was transferred to Government High School, Thuthurmattam. The petitioner did not join the said school immediately due to health reasons. Thereafter, the second respondent in his proceedings dated 28.07.1993 framed charges against the petitioner and there was only one charge that on 110. 1992 at about 1.45 p.m., the petitioner destroyed the promotion register and attendance register in a drunken mood. The petitioner was directed to give explanation on 18. 1993. The petitioner had also given a detailed explanation stating that the charges are frivolous and false. Once again, the second respondent gave another charge sheet against the petitioner framing as many as 5 charges including the charge mentioned in the earlier charge sheet. The petitioner had also given a detailed explanation once again denying all the allegations. After considering the explanation, the second respondent passed an order on 12.01.1995 withholding the increment of the petitioners salary without cumulative effect for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed O.A. No.1915 of 1996 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the same has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.16055 of 2006 on the abolition of the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is wrong, illegal, bad, without basis and justification. The petitioner had given a detailed explanation on 07.01.1994 and the same was not considered properly by the second respondent. It is also submitted that when one charge was framed on 28.07.1993 for which the petitioner had already given explanation, by another charge sheet dated 112. 1993, several charges were framed against the petitioner when admittedly the alleged other charges are prior to 28.07.1993. Therefore, the counsel submitted that the order passed by the second respondent is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside.
.4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was not at all sincere and prompt in his work. The petitioner used to leave the sch
