Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mrs Justice R. KALAIMATHI
M.C.Komalavalli – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Office – Respondent
Writ - Disciplinary Action - Article 226 - Judicial Review of Termination Orders - The court considered the maintainability of a writ petition against a private institution's disciplinary actions, emphasizing the necessity for a public law element in challenging such decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher at a private school, was wrongfully terminated for allegedly beating a student. She contested the disciplinary proceedings, claiming a lack of due process and opportunity to defend herself.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the termination of a private school teacher is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, considering the nature of the institution's public duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that not all actions of private institutions discharging public functions are subject to judicial review unless they demonstrate a clear public law element in the complaint.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to seek remedy before an appropriate forum.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to order to call for the records of the
2nd respondent relating to proceedings dated 24.03.2014 of the disciplinary committee of Asan Memorial Educational Institutions, Chennai vide Ref:AMSS/Secy-G.M./3553/2014 and the order of the appeal committee 06.02.2015 vide No.AMSSS/Principal/433/2015 passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent, the management of the Asan Memorial Educational Institutions, Chennai to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner has joined the Asan Memorial Senior Secondary School Primary Section as a teacher on 09.06.2008. The school is under the management of Asan Memorial Educational Institutions. She was working under the said management nearly for 5 years and 9 months as a teacher. On 19.02.2014, the Principal alleged that she bet Master A.Kabeer on 18.02.2014 who was studying in Class 1-B and due to that he sustained scratch below his left eye. But she never bet any child.
3. She further submits that after leave when she rejoined duty on
24.02.2014, order of suspension was served to her with effect from 20.02.2014. On 26.02.2014, she was given a notice to attend the enquiry on 28.08.2014 at 2.00 p.m. No witness was examined to prove the charge against her and she was asked to give written explanation and the enquiry was closed.
4. It is her further submission that a show cause notice dated
06.03.2014 was issued to her and she was asked to offer her explanation for the enquiry report. The enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report were not served to her. When she was asked to resign on 18.03.2014 as she declined to tender her resignation, the termination order was passed on 24.03.2014. In an appeal before ''Disciplinary Committee” of Asan Memorial Educational Institutions, Chennai, the said Committee without considering the grounds raised by her and without conducting any enquiry confirmed the order of termination of her service vide letter dated
08.05.2014.
5. As per the order of this Court in W.P.No.19264 of 2014 a direction was given to CBSC, Sough Zone Chennai to constitute Disciplinary Appeal Committee as per the CBSE Bye-laws. She submitted her explanation to the Disciplinary Appeal Committee. The Disciplinary Appeal Committee dismissed her appeal on 06.02.2015 without any explanation.
6. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V. Raghavachari for Mr.N.Elayaraja appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the teacher was unnecessarily prosecuted on the ground that as the student was beaten up by her which was totally denied by the petitioner and the said incident is not a serious one which warranted termination. Without following proper procedure, she was terminated from the service which is against the principles of natural justice.
7. Whereas, Mr.A.R.Karunakaran appearing for the 3rd respondent contended that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity of personal hearing to explain her stand on the above incident but she did not offer any specific explanation for the pertinent questions put forth by the Enquiry Officer. It was further contended that the Enquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner was called on charges levelled against her and submitted a report to that effect. The petitioner was called upon to explain as to why her service should not be terminated. For which the petitioner gave a reply dated 11.03.2014 and requested to consider her case sympathetically. Her service were terminated vide order dated 24.03.2014 with effect
25.02.2014.
8. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable in law. The petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and she cannot convert this Court into the fact finding authority.
9. As per order of this Court in the above said writ petitions, the Disciplinary Appeals Committee passed a final order dated 09.01.2015.
10. Admittedly, the said order was not communicated to t
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
