Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Purnima Jha – Appellant
Versus
Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I. Campus, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P.No. 26993 of 2014 & W.M.P.No. 3533 of 2021
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Termination - Minority Institution - Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulations Act - Section 22(1), Rule 17(1) - The court held that the minority institution is governed by some provisions of the Act and Rules, and the prior approval from the competent authority for termination is mandatory. The order of termination and subsequent approval without prior approval were quashed. The petitioner was punished with stoppage of increment for late coming and quarrel with the headmistress, and directed to be reinstated with service continuity and 50% of back wages and attendant benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher in a minority institution, was terminated from service without prior approval from the competent authority. The petitioner challenged the termination and subsequent approval in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the minority institution is governed by some provisions of the Act and Rules, and the prior approval from the competent authority for termination is mandatory. The order of termination and subsequent approval without prior approval were quashed. The petitioner was punished with stoppage of increment for late coming and quarrel with the headmistress, and directed to be reinstated with service continuity and 50% of back wages and attendant benefits.
Issues: 1. Whether the minority institution requires prior approval from the competent authority for termination? 2. Whether the charges against the petitioner justified termination?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the minority institution is governed by some provisions of the Act and Rules, and the prior approval from the competent authority for termination is mandatory. The charges against the petitioner were not justified for termination.
Final Decision: The order of termination and subsequent approval without prior approval were quashed. The petitioner was punished with stoppage of increment for late coming and quarrel with the headmistress, and directed to be reinstated with service continuity and 50% of back wages and attendant benefits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the approval of the order of termination dated 28.11.2013 by the proceedings of the competent authority in Na.Ka.1443/A1/2012 dated 28.05.2014 in ordering the termination of services of the petitioner as Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent institution and quash the same and consequently direct the third and fourth respondents herein to reinstate the services of the petitioner as Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent institution with all service and attendant benefits.)
(Prayer amended vide order dated 03.04.2023 made in W.M.P.No.3532 of 2021 in W.P.No.26993 of 2014)
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of termination dated 28.11.2013 passed by the fourth respondent and confirmed the order of removal by the approval dated 28.05.2014 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Grade Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent school in a vacancy that arose due to retirement of one Chitra Ramdas and she had joined on 22.09.2004 and subsequently her appointment was approved by the competent authority by its proceedings dated 09.06.2008. Thereafter, the Headmistress of the third respondent School was retired from service and as such the petitioner had taken charge as Headmistress from 01.06.2005. However, the petitioner was not posted as Headmistress in the vacancy as the third and fourth respondents appointed one R.Booma as Headmistress from 01.06.2009. Therefore, the petitioner had sent a complaint to the respondents 1 and 2 herein and as such a new Headmistress had developed grudge as against the petitioner and started giving trouble to her in all ways and means. The petitioner was ill-treated by the Headmistress, making complaint to the third respondent even for petty things and reasons. In fact, till the appointment of new Headmistress, there was no complaint, while she was acting as a Headmistress of the third respondent school.
3. While being so, she was served with a charge memo dated 21.12.2009 and the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation. As per the charge, the petitioner had used verbal abuse against the head of the institution in front of children, staff and parents, when she was questioned about her late coming to the school. After submission of her explanations, another charge memo was served on her on 13.07.2011. On receipt of the same, again the petitioner had sent her detailed explanation on 22.07.2011. Thereafter, she was suspended from service on 11.05.2012. In continuation of her suspension, she was served with charge memo dated 25.06.2012, thereby framed six charges and she was called upon to submit her explanations on or before 02.07.2012. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and notice was issued to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry. Though the petitioner sought for certain documents and also sought permission to produce her witnesses to enable her to disprove the charges, she was not given an opportunity and on the strength of the enquiry report, the third respondent by a communication dated 12.09.2012 informed the resolution passed by the fourth respondent, thereby it was unanimously resolved to terminate the service of the petitioner with immediate effect. The said resolution was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.No.34809 of 2012 and obtained an interim order of stay. However, it was subsequently modified and the third respondent passed an order of termination dated 29.11.2013.
4. The order of termination has been challenged in this writ petition. Pending writ petition, the third respondent had sent the order of removal for approval. On receipt of the same, the first respondent, by the impugned ord
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a minority institution is governed by some provisions of the Act and Rules, and the prior approval from the competent authority for terminatio....
Termination of service without inquiry and prior approval violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
Appointments obtained through forged documents are void ab initio, and failure to comply with verification processes undermines claims to employment despite long service, reaffirming minority institu....
The dismissal of an employee for unauthorized absence is justified when procedural requirements are met, despite claims of improper procedure by the employee.
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
