IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 09..6..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. No. 1907 of 1998 A. Cruz Arockiasamy .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Director of School Education Chennai – 6 2. The Correspondent Little Flower Higher Secondary School Salem .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in their proceedings No. Nil dated 11.7.1997 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Kamadevan For Respondent 1: Mr. P. Muthukumar, GA For Respondent 2: Mr. B.T. Seshadri O R D E R Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The writ petition is filed against the order dated 11.7.1997 passed by the second respondent School terminating the petitioner from the services of the second respondent School. The second respondent is a minority school having the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner was working as a P.G. Assistant (Botany) since the year 1979. During February 1997, the petitioner was afflicted with jaundice and applied for leave from 01.02.1997 to 15.02.1997. This was intimated to the School by a telegram followed by a letter. The petitioner wanted a further extension of 15 days and it resulted in the school making alternative arrangement for conducting the Botany Practical Examination which was held on 17.02.1997. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Without reporting for duty by producing proper fitness certificate, the petitioner went to the Practical Examination Hall and started signing the Record Note Books of three students. The petitioner was given a memo questioning his conduct and he refused to receive the said memo and walked out of the Examination Hall. He, once again, sent a telegram on 28.02.1997 seeking for extension of leave. The said leave request was not supported by any Medical Certificate and, therefore, a charge-sheet dated 04.4.1997 was given to the petitioner containing six charges. The letter sent to the petitioner came back unserved. 4. Thereafter, the second respondent appointed an Advocate of Salem to conduct a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer informed the date of enquiry both by registered post and by ordinary post and the postal covers came back with an endorsement 'refused'. The Enquiry Officer, once again, informed the petitioner to file his documents and statements on or before 26.5.1997 and that the enquiry will be held on 30.5.1997. The letter was sent by Certificate of Posting and the petitioner did not appear for the enquiry on 30.5.1997 and it was adjourned to 07.6.1997. Even though the said date was intimated to the petitioner, he did not attend the enquiry on the adjourned date. This made the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry ex parte in which statement of witnesses were recorded and documents were marked. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was sent to the petitioner. But the postal cover came back with an endorsement 'not claimed'. Thereafter, the second respondent passed an order dated 11.7.1997 and sent the same by registered post. Even that cover containing the termination order came back 'unserved' The petitioner suppressing all these information, filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 13759 of 1997 seeking for a direction to furnish the copy of the termination order. 5. On notice from this Court, the second respondent produced the registered postal cover addressed to the petitioner. The said cover was opened in the open Court and the petitioner was handed over with the original termination order. The writ petition was closed after recording the same, by an order dated 05.12.1997. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of termination. 6. The writ petition was admitted on 18.02.1998. However, subsequently, the records were found missing. On complaint from the petitioner's side, it was reconstructed and the matter was posted for final hearing. A detailed counter affidavit dated 16.5.1998 was also filed by the second respondent justifying the termination of the petitioner. The second respondent also filed the original records containing all the communications sent to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Mr. Kamadevan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of termination was not a speaking order and the finding of the Enquiry Officer was not even discussed in the order. In the affidavit, he also made an averment stating that none of the proceedings were served on the petitioner including the termination order. However, the Exs. M.1 to M.28 filed before the Enquiry Officer were produced, in original, before this Court by Mr. B.T. Seshadri, learned counsel for the second respondent. 8. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had adopted a hide and seek game in the matter of enquiry. He had deliberately chosen not to claim any cover addressed to him and some postal covers bear the endorsement that they were refused by the petitioner. Even with regard to the termination order, the petitioner claims that he was not served. It was given to him in the open Court when he filed the earlier writ petition. The allegation made by the petitioner is without any substance. The termination order is a detailed order passed taking note of the conduct of the petitioner in not attending the enquiry. The charges made against the petitioner are very serious and the petitioner has no satisfactory explanation for remaining absent and coming to the school without proper fitness certificate and attending the practical examination for which he was not authorised. 9. The second respondent even though a minority school, the enquiry conducted by them must conform to the minimum principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Meenglass Tea Estate v. The Workmen [AIR 1963 SC 1719] has set out as to what constitutes minimum principles of natural justice in conducting a domestic enquiry. In the present case, those minimum principles have been followed. 10. This Court vide its judgment in A. Casimir v. Joint Director of School Education and others[1996 Writ L.R. 470], after following the said decision, held that the parameters pointed out in Meenglass Tea Estate case (cited supra) must be followed even in respect of minority institutions when conducting an enquiry. 11. A Division Bench of this Court took a similar view vide its decision in C. Masanam v. Chief Educational Officer, Madurai and others [2000 (3) M.L.J. 19]. The petitioner will have to blame himself for not attending the enquiry to put forth his defence. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action taken by the second respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is misconceived and accordingly, will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gri To 1. The Director of School Education Chennai – 6. +1 cc to Mr.B.T.Seshadri, Advocate, SR.No.27578. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.27578. +2 cc to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate, SR.No.23312, 27876. ts (co) krd / 13.6.08 W.P. No. 1907 of 1998 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/