The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the applicability of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 to aided minority institutions.

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE & T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.

This Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.1703 of 2009 dated 16.9.2009. The appellant is the Writ Petitioner and the challenge in the Writ Petition was to an order passed by the second respondent Management dated 10.8.2009, in and by which the Management denied subsistence allowance to the appellant during the period of her suspension.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the second respondent School during 1983. The Management by an order dated 16.3.2009 placed the appellant under suspension based on certain allegations. Subsequently charge memo dated 18.6.2009 was served on the appellant containing seven articles of charges and the third respondent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the domestic enquiry. While the domestic enquiry was in progress, the appellant submitted a representation on 6.7.2009 requesting for payment of subsistence allowance, apart from seeking other reliefs. The request made by the appellant for subsistence allowance was rejected by an order dated 10.8.2009, which was challenged in the Writ Petition. The learned Judge, by the impugned order disposed of the Writ petition, directing the second respondent Management to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and further gave an opportunity to the Management to make representation to the authorities to get the allowance reimbursed from the Department. Not being satisfied with the direction issued in the Writ Petition, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the stand taken by the Management is that Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974, (herein after referred to as the Rules) are not applicable to them since they are an aided minority institution and this Court in an earlier Judgment has quashed Rule 17 of the Rules in so far as it was made applicable to aided minority institutions and therefore in the absence of any Rule, the appellant is entitled to full salary during the period of suspension.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court: i) AIR 1959 SC-1342 [MANAGEMENT OF HOTEL IMPERIAL Vs HOTEL WORKERS UNION], ii)AIR 1961 SC-276 [T.CAJEE Vs.U.JORMANIK SIEM], iii)AIR 1964 SC 787 [R.P.KAPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA] and iv)AIR 1968 SC 800 [BALAVANTRAY RATILAL PATEL Vs STATE OF MAHASTHTRA]. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in 2001 (1) CTC 292 [G.ANBARASAN Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CUDDALORE].

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Management would submit that the direction issued by the learned single Judge in the impugned Judgment has been complied with and the appellant has been paid the subsistence allowance being 50% of her salary and during the pendency of the Writ petition the appellant did not co-operate in the domestic enquiry and the Management was compelled to seek for a direction from this Court to direct the appellant to co-operate in the domestic enquiry. Further, it is contended that the domestic enquiry has been completed and the enquiry officer has submitted his report to the Management and the disciplinary would be concluded expeditiously and final orders would be passed.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that in view of the earlier decision of this Court, Rule 17 of the Rules is inapplicable to aided minority institutions.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. The inherent power of the Management to place its emp