Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
S. Andrew Chandra Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director(Higher Secondary), Directorate of School Education, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. (MD) Nos. 12706 & 8873 of 2010 & M.P. (MD) No. 2 of 2010
Decided on : 08-01-2021
Disciplinary Proceedings - Physical Education Teacher - Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 - Charges of misconduct - Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings - Power of the Court to interfere with the punishment imposed - Dismissal from service modified to compulsory retirement with one-third cut in pension - W.P.(MD) No.12706 of 2010 dismissed - W.P.(MD) No.8873 of 2010 dismissed - No order as to costs
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Physical Education Teacher, was charged with misconduct and faced disciplinary proceedings. The charges included failure to provide physical education coaching and unbecoming conduct towards the Head Master and students. The petitioner sought certain documents for the enquiry but did not participate in the proceedings. The enquiry officer found the charges proved, and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed. The petitioner appealed, challenging the punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and that the Court's role is to review the manner in which the decision was made. The Court found that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner, and the petitioner's absence from the proceedings did not justify interference. The Court also noted that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on a preponderance of probabilities, not the strict standard of a criminal trial. The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, the relevance of the documents sought by the petitioner, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that it does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and that the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. The Court also highlighted that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on a preponderance of probabilities. The Court further stated that it would only interfere with the punishment if it is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary, and disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges, thereby shocking the conscience of the court.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the punishment imposed on the petitioner. However, the Court modified the punishment from dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with one-third cut in pension up to the petitioner's normal age of retirement. The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the monetary benefits resulting from the modification of the punishment to the petitioner within twelve weeks from the date of the order. The Court also confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner in the connected writ petition.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.114870/W5/E2/2009, dated 21.09.2010, on the file of the respondent No.1 and the order of dismissal, dated 04.10.2010 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal.
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to the impugned order in Moo.Mu.No.36781/W5/E2/09, dated 19.10.2009, on the file of the respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal.)
1. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed by the very same petitioner and the issue involved in both the petitions being interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Physical Education Teacher in the third respondent School in the year 1988. While so, on 12.04.2008, which was a full working Saturday, when he was on duty, supervising the physical education test in the forenoon session, the petitioner had to leave the School abruptly as he needed to attend an emergency situation due to serious illness of his wife. However, as the Head Master of the School was not available, he placed a leave application for half a day casual leave on the table of the Head Master and informed the same to the clerk by name Mr.G.Prabakar and the co-employee, viz., Mr.A.Tamil Mani and left the School.
3. The next day i.e., on 15.04.2008, the petitioner came to know that the half day leave availed by him on 12.04.2008 was not entered in the register and he was informed that the Head Master did not receive the leave application. Thereafter, though the petitioner was regular in his service for the rest of the days in the month of April, he was not initially paid the salary for the month of April and only after the intervention of the second respondent, the same was paid along with the salary for the month of May 2008.
4. While so, the Head Master of the School complained to the third respondent on 16.04.2008, as if the petitioner left the school in the afternoon on 12.04.2008 without submitting any leave application and the third respondent issued a show cause notice dated 17.04.2008. After the receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 22.04.2008 stating that on account of urgent personal necessities, he took casual leave for half a day and he submitted the leave application. However, not accepting the explanation, the third respondent issued a further show cause notice, dated 08.05.2008, levelling certain charges and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 21.05.2008. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings was initiated.
5. The third respondent appointed a retired Assistant Director as the Enquiry Officer. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer filed an enquiry report, dated 06.07.2008, holding the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. The petitioner was provided with the enquiry report and called upon to submit further explanation to which the petitioner submitted his further explanation objecting the enquiry report. However, the third respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 18.08.2008, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect from 01.04.2009 on the petitioner.
6. Challenging the said order of punishment passed by the third respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, on 10.09.2008 and after a long time, the first respondent rejected the appeal, vide his proceedings dated 19.10.2009. Challenging the order of rejection passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8873 of 2010.
7. In the connected writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12706 of 2010, it is the case of the petitioner that he was in ser
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
