The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charges against the petitioners were baseless and vague, and the provisions of the disciplinary rules cannot be invoked against them.

These writ petitions are filed challenging the charge memo issued to the petitioners. The petitioners are teachers in the polytechnic college functioning under the Institute of Road Transport, a registered society created for the purpose of educating the children of the staffs of the State Transport Corporation.

2. The Charges under Rule 17 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and Rules 20(1), 20(2)(1) and 20(3) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, framed against the writ petitioners, are as follows :

"(i) ..... failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and has done everything which is/are unbecoming members of the service.

(ii) ..... has/have failed to ensure duty integrity and devotion to duty among students.

(iii) ..... failed to perform the task assigned to him/her/them."

3. The case of the petitioners is that as the pass percentage of the Institute had gone down, fixing the liability on the petitioners, a charge memo was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners in reply had submitted that the syllabus was very tough, that the students who failed in the examinations did not attend the special classes regularly and that the key answers to the same questions were different in different Institutes. However, without considering the exact reply, the 4th respondent has on his own imagined and quoted a reply which was not furnished by the petitioners and has framed these baseless and vague charges. Aggrieved over the same, these writ petitions have been filed.

4. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the teachers cannot be found fault for the poor result in the board examinations. The Counsel further contended that the petitioners had also conducted special classes and counselling. The Counsel further contended that the reply given by the petitioners to the show cause notices have been completely ignored before issuing the impugned charge memo and the 4th respondent had with malfide intentions quoted something else as if it was the reply of the petitioners admitting the allegations. The Counsel further reiterated that the syllabus was tough and the Management should not have permitted the students who failed in the model examinations to undertake the board examination. The Counsel further contended that the allegations in the charge memo are vague and baseless. The Counsel relying upon the judgments in (i) Union of India and others v. J.Ahmed reported in (1979) 2 Supreme Court Cases 286; (ii) State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 443; and (iii) Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal v. Dr. Sumitra Dash reported in (2004) 5 Supreme Court Cases 263, contended that the 4th respondent has no authority to initiate the departmental proceedings as the Fundamental Rules are not applicable to the petitioners and the alleged acts would not constitute an act of “misconduct” and hence sought the quashing of the charge memo in all the writ petitions.

5. The Counsel for 4th respondent asserting the contentions in the counter contended that it is only because of the negligence, the pass percentage of the students has tremendously gone down. As responsible teachers, the petitioners have failed to ensure that all the students who attended the Board Examinations passed out and also failed to provide any remedial measures for future improvement and thereby committed a “misconduct”. The cost of running the Institute is derived from the income yielded by the State Transport Corporation and the students are all children of the employees of the Transport department. The Counsel also contended that as an employer, the 4th respondent is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners. It is further contended that the instead of submitting the explanation, the petitioners have rushed to this Court.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. A perusal of the charge memo clearly illustrates that the basis for fram