The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the defense in disciplinary proceedings and considered the Writ Petitioner's consent to forego backwages in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order of the learned Judge in W.P.No.33149 of 2017 dated 19.08.2021 and allow the Appellant Management to conduct enquiry.)

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed, challenging the order dated 19.08.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33149 of 2017, by which the impugned order, calling for explanation from the Writ Petitioner once again was set aside.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the Writ Petition as “Writ Petitioner, the Appellant School and the Government” in this judgment.

Facts in nutshell:

3. It was averred by the Writ Petitioner that he joined the services of the Appellant School as Record Clerk on 31.12.1987 and was subsequently, promoted as Laboratory Assistant on 09.11.2005 and Junior Assistant thereafter on 02.06.2008. He was placed under suspension by an order in R.C.No.3 dated 02.06.2012 on the charges of misappropriation of funds, etc., under Rule 17(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulations) Rules, 1974 (in short 'Rules, 1974') and a charge memo was issued on 21.06.2012. Rules 17(2)(i) of the Rules, 1974 reads as follows:

“17 (2) (i) Whenever a teacher or other person employed in a private school is kept under suspension, such suspension shall, immediately on the date of issue of the suspension order, be intimated by the Secretary of the school committee to the District Educational Officer concerned along with a copy of the suspension order”

3.1. It was further averred by the Writ Petitioner that consequent to the issuance of charge memo, he was dismissed from service on 01.08.2012 without even furnishing the enquiry report and the approval petition filed before the 4th Respondent herein through the 5th Respondent herein was rejected by the 4th Respondent herein on 07.11.2012 and the Writ Petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service after cancelling the punishment. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the Appellant School preferred an appeal before the 3rd Respondent herein and the Writ Petitioner also filed an appeal for issuance of an order for reinstatement, which were heard together. After considering both sides, the 3rd Respondent confirmed the order of the 4th respondent, thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the Appellant School and allowing the appeal preferred by the Writ Petitioner.

3.2. It was also averred by the Writ Petitioner that after a lapse of more than 19 months, a Review Petition was filed by the Appellant School before the Government / 2nd Respondent herein, which came to be dismissed on 19.05.2017. Though he had sent several representations and reminders to the respondents one after the other, there was no response thereon, which compelled him to file W.P.No.39150 of 2016 for a direction to dispose of the representation and this Court, by an order dated 07.09.2017, directed the 2nd Respondent herein to pass suitable orders within six weeks, pursuant to which, an order of reinstatement dated 09.11.2017 was passed, however, with a direction to the Writ Petitioner to answer to the charges framed on 21.06.2012.

3.3. It was submitted by the Writ Petitioner that aggrieved by such a clause in the impugned order, he filed W.P.No.33149 of 2017, seeking to quash the order dated 09.11.2017, which was allowed by this Court, against which, the Appellant School is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant School strenuously submitted that despite granting several opportunities, no explanation was submitted by the Writ Petitioner and he also failed to attend the enquiry fixed on 12.07.2012. Since there was no cooperation on the side of the delinquent employee to proceed with the enquiry, having left with no other option, he was set exparte and the order of dismissal was passed against him. Learned counsel further submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that there was a violation