Another companyy of the show cause numberice was served through another mode on 9.4.1985.
The DEO issued a numberice to the employee but there was numberresponse thereto.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Management preferred an appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 in short the Act to the Joint Director of School Education Secondary , Directorate of School Education in short the Joint Director .
Another memo was issued on 30.10.1984 companytaining similar charges.
The management was of the view that since he had number taken prior permission from the school and had number chosen to intimate the school authorities, it resulted in dislocation of the teaching.
The employee did number respond to the show cause numberice.
But he did number make any effective participation.
On 3.12.1985, DEO sent a report to the CEO.
On 9.3.1988.
2003 3 SCR 282 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Undaunted by reverses before the departmental authorities and the High Court, the Managing Committee of Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School hereinafter referred to as the management has filed this appeal.
The companytroversy lies within u narrow companypass and factual position being undisputed, a brief reference thereto would suffice.
The students were put to grave and irreparable loss and hardship.
In support of the appeal, Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned senior companynsel submitted that the authorities and the High Court were number justified in their views and approach.
It was indicated that the very purpose for which a teacher is appointed is to impart teaching to the students.
inter alia, observing that though the employee did number give any reply to the charges as against him though he appeared before the CEO twice, yet the charges were number so grave as to warrant dismissal.
He had also number companypleted portions of the lessons for the 11th standard.
On 9.5.1985, letter was written to the Chief Educational Officer, respondent No.3 in short the CEO seeking his approval for term nation of employees services in terms of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
CEO asked the management for re instatement of the employee with back wages.
On 31.8.1984, the management issued another memo to the employee stating therein that since he had number attended the school for very long period without obtaining prior permission and as he had cancelled the classes and left for home early, same amounted to deficiency in service, misconduct and warranted action.
On 24.1.1985 memo of charges was also issued to him, inter alia, indicating that since he had number passed the Tamil examination as required, and since he had failed to discharge his duties diligently having absented from school frequently without prior permission and having number taken classes regularly, there was serious dislocation of work and inconvenience to the students.
inter alia, indicating that the employee had number denied any of the charges and since the management had produced materials in support of the charges, sanction for dismissal should be granted.
According to management, his behaviour and performance was number satisfactory and that he was highly irregular both in attendance as well as in teaching.
He was required to show cause in respect of the allegations.
Charges were framed and the employee was called upon to submit his reply to the charges.
1.12.1984, the date from which he had stopped attending the school.
On 29.8.1984, the management issued another memo to him seeking a clarification as to whether he had passed the Tamil examination.
Several requests were made to the employee to attend classes, but he turned down their requests.
Again, an enquiry was companyducted by the CEO on 23.4.1987.
Therefore, a decision was taken by school companymittee unanimously to terminate his services w.e.f.
Prior to his long absence, he had number been taking classes regularly.
The 5th respondent hereinafter referred to as the employee was appointed as P.G. Assistant for teaching English in 1978.
The appeal was rejected.
On 29.8.1985 letter was written to the District Educational Officer, respondent No.4 in short the DEO requesting for early action in the matter.
A memorandum was sent to him and to another teacher on 14.1.1983 stating therein that they would be required to pass examination companyducted by the State of Tamil Nadu in Tamil language before the end of the academic year in order to qualify for the posts they were holding, failing which appropriate action was to be taken.
On 21.4.1987, an enquiry was companyducted by the authorities and the employee was called to the school.
If the teacher was deficient in teaching and was irregular in taking classes, that is a very serious matter warranting termination of service.
Students as well as their parents companyplained about the deficiencies of the employee in number taking classes regularly and leaving the classes in the middle.
Finally, on 24.4.1987 the CEO passed an order refusing permission for termination on the ground that the allegations which companystituted foundation for the proposed order of termination, were number so grave as to warrant punishment like dismissal.
From 1.12.1984, the employee did number attend school.
It also took a stand that since it had neither suspended the employee number terminated his services and awaiting approval of the companycerned authority, the question of reinstatement and paying back wages did number arise.
Therefore, permission was refused.
On 13.3.1985, the show cause numberice was issued indicating that in spite of opportunity given, he had failed to respond and was called upon to submit his explanation as to why his services should number be terminated for violation of companye of companyduct prescribed for teachers employed in private schools.
Additionally, it was indicated that as he had number companypleted portions of the lessons for 11th standard and the students and parents had companyplained.
Aggrieved by such direction, management preferred a revision before the State Government.
After seeing the employee, the CEO was prima facie of the view that he was psychic.
The Joint Director wrote to the management that if it does number pay the wages directly to the employee, action should be taken for making direct payment to him.
