The expiration of the suspension period and the need for prior approval for continuation of suspension, as well as the delegation of powers by the School Committee in conducting enquiries.

1. Heard both sides.

2. Both the writ petitions are filed by one and the same person. The first writ petition in W.P.No.21287 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner, who is working as a Post Graduate Assistant in the third respondent school challenging the order dated 04.09.2010, wherein and by which, the third respondent had placed him under suspension in public interest and also for conducting an enquiry into the charges levelled against him. The third respondent had also been cited as the fourth respondent in his individual capacity and certain malafides are attributed to him.

3. According to the petitioner, since the fourth respondent was earlier a teacher of the school and when given the post of Headmaster, in view of the appeal filed by the petitioner, the promotion given to the fourth respondent was not approved and retired on 31.05.2010. After the retirement of the fourth respondent, he became the Secretary of the School Committee. As Secretary of the School Committee, he vindictively proceeded against him and suspended him in his individual capacity without any authorisation by the school committee.

4. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 17.09.2010. On notice from this court, the second respondent – District Educational Officer had filed a counter affidavit dated 02.03.2011. Apart from other disputes, within the school, in paragraph 9, the second respondent has stated that the suspension period of the petitioner had expired on 03.11.2010. In the absence of any extension of suspension for a further period of 2 months, by the competent authority, his suspension cannot continue and the petitioner was entitled to get restored to his service with effect from 04.11.2010.

5. On behalf of the third and fourth respondent, a counter affidavit was filed on 09.02.2011. In that counter affidavit, it is claimed that the suspension was necessitated in view of the grave charges leveled against the petitioner and the school committee had authorised the fourth respondent to proceed to conduct the enquiry and in the light of the said authorisation, the proceedings initiated by him is in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner had filed a rejoinder dated 04.03.2011. In the rejoinder, apart from pointing out the vagueness of the charges and also improper constitution of the School committee in accordance with law and with the rules framed, once again the statutory requirements of the restoration of service was reiterated.

7. While the earlier writ petition was pending, the petitioner preferred second writ petition in W.P.No.24911 of 2010 challenging the proceedings of the School Committee and also show cause notice on his attempt to go away from the Head Quarters. In that writ petition, this court directed private notice to be served on the respondents. On such service of notice, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated Nil (February 2011).

8. In that writ petition, the challenge to the charge memo was made essentially on the ground that the Secretary of the School Committee had issued the suspension order without knowledge of the school committee and the school committee has not been convened in the manner known to law. There is no requirement of the law that the petitioner cannot leave Head Quarters under suspension.

9. So far as the petitioner's suspension is concerned, it must be stated that the stand of the second respondent is that any order in the absence of any prior approval obtained as per proviso to Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1923, the suspension can be last for 2 months and the teacher kept under suspension is without prejudice to the enquiry deemed to be restored to service as a teacher of the school.

10. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the third respondent fairly submits that they have not obtained prior approval from the competent authority and as on date, there was no order passed by the department even though they had appl