The dismissal of an employee for unauthorized absence is justified when procedural requirements are met, despite claims of improper procedure by the employee.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Lajapathy Roy for Mr. T.Thirumurugan for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr.M.Sarangan for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Rajaraman for the third respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record.

2. Challenging the order of dismissal, dismissing the petitioner from the service of the third respondent school as a PG Assistant by order dated 19.02.2004 in R.No:R.C.H.S.S dated 19.02.2004 issued by the third respondent and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.51841/W5/E2/2018 dated 13.09.2019, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 15385 of 2017 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 18.09.2019 in Na.Ka.No. 6830/A3/2019, this petition is filed.

3. The petitioner joined as a teacher in Ramanathan Chettiar Higher Secondary School, Puduvayal, Sivagangai district on 10.03.1982. Thereafter, he became P.G. Assistant in Commerce in the same school. He originally applied medical leave for the period from 06.11.1999 to 05.12.1999 along with a medical certificate. The school authority referred the medical certificate to the medical board and also directed the petitioner to appear before the medical board to get sanction for medical leave. Thereafter, the petitioner continuously applied for medical leave and failed to attend the school and also he failed to produce proper medical certificates in this regard. The petitioner did not attend the school for nearly 4 years. However, the petitioner claimed that he was sick and was undergoing medical treatment whereas the third respondent school had framed charges as against the petitioner that he was involved in real estate business and criminal cases and also in political activities and he committed disobedience to the order of the third respondent school and continuously remained unauthorizedly absent.

4. Therefore, the third respondent school resolved to dismiss the petitioner from service and sought permission from the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, in this regard. Finally, on 08.02.2004, the permission was granted by the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, for dismissing the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the third respondent passed the impugned order of dismissal dated 19.12.2004, dismissing the petitioner from service. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Director of School Education, Higher Education Department, Chennai. The said order of the third respondent dated 19.12.2004 was confirmed in the appeal before the Joint Director of School Education. Accordingly, the Joint Director of School Education, confirmed the approval given by the second respondent and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner by an order dated 20.09.2006 in proceedings bearing Mu.Mu.No. 60719/W29/2003. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.42044 of 2006 before this Court.

5. However, this Court passed an order directing the petitioner to avail efficacious alternative remedy under Section 24 of the Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973. Following which, the petitioner approached the learned Private School's Appellate Tribunal, that is, the Subordinate Judges Court at Devakottai, in C.M.A.No.2 of 2008. Even thereafter, he failed to attend the Court and the case was dismissed by order dated 11.06.2009. In the interregnum, he filed W.P.(MD)No.15385 of 2017 seeking to call for the records on the file of the Private Schools Appellate Tribunal/Subordinate Judges Court, Devakottai in C.M.A.No.2 of 2008 dated 13.02.2017 and to quash the same. This Court, by order dated 08.09.2017, observed that the Chief Educational Officer, Sivagangai, who gave approval to the order of dismissal of the petitioner dated 19.12.2004 passed by the third respondent school happened to be the Appellate Authority in view of his promotion as Joint Director of School a