1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :: 17..06..2011 Coram:: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY Writ Appeal (MD)No.504 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 1. The Secretary, Sri Kumara Kurupara Swamigal Higher Secondary School, Srivaigundam, Tuticorin District. 2. S. Shanmuganathan, The Secretary, Sri Kumara Kurupara Swamigal Higher Secondary School, Srivaigundam, Tuticorin District. ... Appellants - Vs - 1. A. Nallamuthu, S/o. N. Arumainayagam, 62, Ambalam Street, Srivaigundam - 628 601, Tuticorin District. 2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 3. The District Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. ...Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 29.04.2011 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.14619 of 2010. Prayer in WP(MD)No.14619/2010:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned proceeding of the third respondent bearing A.No.213/2010 dated 07.11.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service as Headmaster in the third respondent school. For Appellants :: Mr. K. K. Kannan For Respondents :: Mr. P.Pethu Rajesh for R - 1 Mr. R. Karthikeyan for R-2 and R-3 Additional Government Pleader - - - - - - - https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This Writ Appeal is filed as against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.04.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.14619 of 2010. 2. The said writ petition has been filed by the first respondent herein challenging an order of suspension dated 07.11.2010 and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service as Headmaster in the appellant school herein. 3. The first respondent / writ petitioner was working as a Headmaster in the appellant school. Basing on certain allegations, he was placed under suspension. As far as the appellant school is concerned, even according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the same is governed by The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also the Rules framed therein. As per Section 22 of the Act read with 17 of The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), no such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension. Subsequently, the period can be extended with the consent of the authorities for a further period of two months and altogether the teacher can be placed under suspension for four months. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was continuously kept under suspension even after the expiry period of four months and in spite of repeated requests for reinstatement in service, he was not reinstated. Therefore, he has filed the writ petition for quashing the order of suspension and also for a direction for reinstatement into service. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 29.04.2011 has allowed the writ petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the allegations levelled against the first respondent / writ petitioner are so serious enough, consequently, though approval was not granted by the competent authority for dismissal of the teacher from service, he could not be reinstated in service. According to him, as against the order of the Chief Educational Officer, rejecting to grant approval, an Appeal dated 30.03.2011 is pending before the Joint Director of Higher Secondary Schools, Chennai. Since the allegations against the first respondent / writ petitioner are so serious, the appellants cannot to be directed to reinstate the first respondent into service. 5. As far as the school of the appellants is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants admitted that the same is governed by The Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973 and The Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974. Certainly, the provisions of the Act and the Rules have to be applied to the appellant school. Section 22(3) of the Act reads as follows:- "22. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of Teachers or other persons employed in private Schools:- (1) .... https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (2) .... (3) (a) No teacher or other person employed in any private school shall be placed under suspension, except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct, within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 21, of such teacher or other person is contemplated. (b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not contemplated within that period, such teacher or other person shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as teacher or other employee : Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months, for a further period not exceeding two months, if, in the opinion of such competent authority, the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such teacher or other person. " As per the above said provision, no suspension of a staff member of a private school can remain in force for more than four months. 6. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the date of suspension of the appellant is 07.11.2010 and as on date, more than four months have been elapsed. It is the specific stand of the first respondent / writ petitioner that subsistence allowance was also not paid to him and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It is also not disputed that the approval sought for the dismissal of the first respondent / writ petitioner was rejected by the competent authority. Under such circumstances, when there is a specific provision that no such suspension shall remain in force for more than four months, certainly, the appellant school is bound by the said provision. It is the stand of the appellants that since the allegations levelled are serious in nature, the first respondent / writ petitioner could not be reinstated into service. As far as the appellant school is concerned, it is an aided school and there is no dispute with regard to that. In view of Section 22(3) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules, we are of the opinion that the first respondent / writ petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for i.e., revocation of suspension and reinstatement. If the appellant school is of the opinion that basing on the nature of the allegations levelled against the first respondent / writ petitioner, he cannot be reinstated in service, in view of Section 22(3) of the Act, the appellant school has to pay the salary to him. 7. Under the above said circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Joint Director, Higher Secondary School Education, Chennai to dispose of the appeal dated 30.03.2011 of the appellants filed against the order of the Chief Educational Officer, rejecting the grant of approval for dismissal of the first respondent / writ petitioner from service, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the appellants are directed either to reinstate the first respondent / writ petitioner into service or pay the salary to the first respondent / writ petitioner, if for any reason they are not willing to reinstate him into service, within a period of two weeks from today. It is made clear that in the event of success by the appellants before the Appellate Authority, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 said amount can be claimed by way of grant from the educational authorities. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1. The Joint Director, Higher Secondary School Education, Chennai. 2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. 3. The District Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.19129 + 1 cc to Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, Advocate, SR No.18922 W.A.(MD)No.504 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 17.06.2011 Dpn/- RJ/8.7.11 4p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/