The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and termination of an employee must comply with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, including obtaining prior approval for termination and conducting enquiries into charges against the employee.

The third respondent is a private aided school governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. In that school, there arose a vacancy for the post of Physical Education Teacher. The school Management obtained prior permission on 12.04.2008 from the Educational Authorities to fill up the said vacancy by going through the process of selection. Accordingly, after doing the said exercise, the School Committee appointed the petitioner as Physical Education teacher from 01.12.2008. Seeking approval of the same, a proposal was submitted to the second respondent and the same was still pending. While so, the fourth respondent, who is the Headmaster of the school, on 02.02.2009, issued a charge memorandum levelling as many as 5 charges to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.02.2009 denying all the charges. Thereafter, the Secretary of the third respondent School, by letter dated 14.02.2009, directed the petitioner to appear before the School Committee on 19.02.2009 at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared. It appears that some enquiry was held and thereafter the Secretary of the School issued an order dated 20.02.2009 terminating the petitioner from service with effect from 20.02.2009. In lieu of one month's notice, the petitioner was to get one month remuneration. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

2. In this writ petition, it is contended that the Headmaster had no authority to issue a charge memorandum and thus, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Headmaster, without the authority of the School Committee itself is illegal. Secondly, it is submitted that though the petitioner denied all the charges, by submitting his explanation, no enquiry was held into the charges and no witness was examined. Thus, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner at all to defend the charges in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 19.02.2009, in the decision making process to terminate the services of the petitioner, the fourth respondent was also present and he participated effectively. The fourth respondent was highly biased against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, during the selection process in which the petitioner was appointed, the fourth respondent made an attempt to get his own man appointed, but he could not succeed. Therefore, the charge memorandum and the subsequent proceedings were of his making, which according to the petitioner suffers from bias. Nextly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was terminated without getting prior approval as required under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a few judgments in support of his contention about which, I would make reference at the appropriate stages in this order.

3. In the counter filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the charge memorandum was issued only as instructed by the Secretary of the School Committee. Therefore, according to the counter, it cannot be said that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the issuance of the charge memorandum on 31.01.2009 by the Headmaster is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that on 19.02.2009, as directed by the Secretary, the petitioner appeared before the School Committee. It is further stated that after a thorough enquiry and after perusing the complaints by the students, teachers and the parents, the School Committee sought for explanation from the petitioner and since the petitioner had not come forward with explanation for the charges, it was concluded that he was not in a move to offer any explanation. The School Committee, thereafter, on perusing the relevant complaints and on specific consideration that since within a short span of 2 months, the petitioner