1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:19.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.848 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 The Secretary, Sri Kumara Gurupara Swamigal Higher Secondary School, Sivakundam, Thoothukudi District. :Appellant(First Respondent) -Vs- 1.A.Nallamuthu 2.E.Lakshmanan 3.The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. :Respondents (Petitioners and 2nd and 3rd Respondents) Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 21.12.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD)No.14871 of 2010 to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order dated 15.12.10 on the file of the second respondent passed in the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to have a legal assitance of an advocate in the domestic enquiry. For Appellant : Mr.K.K.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.Pethurajesh for R1 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.14871 of 2010 dated 21.12.2010, by which, in the Writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein, challenging the proceedings dated 15.12.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent, directing the appellant to conduct an enquiry, the learned Single Judge has held that the 1st respondent, who is working as a Headmaster in the appellant / school, is entitled to be represented through a legally qualified person before the enquiry officer. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The case of the appellant in this appeal is that such an order directing to permit the 1st respondent to appear through counsel in the departmental enquiry initiated against him, has been passed, without giving notice to the appellant / school. Admittedly, the 1st respondent is a Headmaster working in the appellant / school and the appellant / school is the educational agency as well as the college committee, which is responsible to take action against any of the teachers as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act. Whileso, in our view, the order of the learned Judge in not giving notice to the appellant, while passing such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 3.Accordingly, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the learned Single Judge only on the ground that no notice was given to the appellant in the writ petition, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remand the matter back to the learned Single for a decision afresh, after giving notice to all the parties in the Writ petition. The Writ Appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Chief Educational Officer, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. Copy To: The Section Officer, Writ Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1CC to Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, Advocate. SR.No.32266. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.32237. Nbj W.A.(MD)No.848 of 2011 RP/28.09.2011/2P/5C. 19.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/