The court determined that disciplinary proceedings must comply with statutory rules and natural justice principles, including proper charge framing and the issuance of a second show-cause notice.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

1.This writ petition is filed to call for the records of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 29.01.2024 regarding the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the termination order dated 10.02.2024 and the order of the appellate authority dated 14.03.2024.

2. The brief factual matrix in which the writ petition arises is that the petitioner was working as a Physical Education Teacher in the 2^nd respondent School, run by the Archbishop of Pondicherry-Cuddalore Archdiocese, the 1^st respondent herein. While so, a memorandum was issued on 19.09.2023 stating that complaints were received from other staff members relating to abusing, disrespecting, detaining, ill-treating and exploiting the colleagues on 19.06.2023. On 01.08.2023, a complaint was also received from a parent by name Bhula. Another complaint was also received from yet another parent on 11.09.2023.

3. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written explanation within three days from the above memorandum as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Thereafter, yet another memorandum was issued on 22.09.2023 stating that it is proposed disciplinary action against him for use of a mobile phone in the School campus, especially in the classroom during the teaching hours, by recording the proceedings of the classroom on 19.09.2023 using his mobile phone No.+91-9842456123. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation in writing and if he does not submit his explanation, it was stated that orders will be passed exparte. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 03.10.2023. The explanation was not accepted. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.10.2023. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the charges. The Enquiry Officer questioned the petitioner on the charges and the petitioner denied. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and finally submitted a report on 29.01.2024. A copy of the enquiry report is said to have been forwarded to the management as well as to the petitioner. It is further stated that the management straight away passed the order of punishment dated 10.02.2024, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of termination from service.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent Archdiocese. The first respondent, namely the Archbishop of Puducherry-Cuddalore, considered the appeal and modified the punishment as one of removal with gratuity and passed an order dated 14.03.2024. Aggrieved by both the original and the appellate order, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Mr.AjayaKumar, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that even though the institution is an unaided institution, the Pondicherry School Education Act , 1987 is applicable to the petitioner. As per Section 17 of the Act, the Government of Puducherry is empowered to make Rules regulating even the conditions of service, including disciplinary matters of the teachers and other persons employed in the recognised Schools. The Government of Puducherry has framed the Pondicherry School Education Rules, 1996. As per Rule 48, the teachers and other persons employed in the recognised schools shall be governed, as required under sub-section (1) of Section 19 by the Code of Conduct as specified in the Appendix. Further, the procedure for imposing major penalties is contained in Rule 54 , it must be seen that the procedure from the beginning till the end is being laid out. The authorities are supposed to have initiated the disciplinary proceedings by framing definite charges