Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the Secretary, Ramakrishna Mission High School (hereinafter referred to as R.K. Mission School) against the order dated 28. 2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.11972 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the R.K. Mission School and affirmed the order dated 312. 2007 passed by the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education), College Road, Chennai, the first respondent herein. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail. 2. The third respondent, who was a Teacher in the appellant-R.K. Mission School, was proceeded against departmentally for four charges, and he having been found guilty, the competent authority, viz., the Secretary of the R.K. Mission School, by order dated 17. 2006, taking a lenient view, instead of terminating the services of the third respondent, imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. The third respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before the first respondent herein against the order of punishment of stoppage of two increments. On 312. 2007, the first respondent passed an order to the effect that the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect granted to the third respondent by the School Secretary by his order dated 16. 2006 is not accepted. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-R.K. Mission School referred to the charge memo, including the additional charge memo, wherein altogether four charges were levelled against the third respondent. It was submitted that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law after notice to the third respondent and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis of the evidence available on record, including the oral evidence. There being no infirmity, according to the learned counsel, the order dated 312. 2007 passed by the first respondent herein, who is also the appellate authority, is uncalled for, which has not been appreciated by the learned single Judge. 4. There being no infirmity, according to the learned counsel, the order dated 312. 2007 passed by the first respondent herein, who is also the appellate authority, is uncalled for, which has not been appreciated by the learned single Judge. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice; some of the charges were three to four years old and none of the alleged students was examined to bring home the charges. It is stated that only the students concerned can give evidence stating as to what actually happened on the date of the incident alleged by one or the other complainant. Further, according to the learned counsel, a fact finding enquiry was conducted in this matter by the District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram, Chengleput District, viz., the second respondent herein, on the basis of the complaints made by some of the parents, and he found no substance in the allegations levelled against the third respondent. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, noticed the rival contentions and also perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the third respondent is a Teacher in the R.K. Mission School, which is a school run by one of the reputed institutions of the country. By two different charge memos, four charges were framed against the third respondent, which were enquired into by a common Enquiry Officer, and the following were the charges levelled against the third respondent :- .(1) A Complaint dated 12. 2005 by one V.A. Murugan, father of Selvan M. Rameshkumar studying 10th Standard in our High School, about your act that on 211. 2005, when you were taking Tamil Subject Class for the 10th Standard students, which is a co-education class, you have used very abusive and unparliamentary words against the said student; and pulled his penis in front of the boys and girls in the class and sent him out of the class. .(2) A complaint dated 16. 2001 by one Kanniappan, grandfather of R. Kalidas, 9th Standard student, about your act of kicking and beating that student. .(3) A complaint dated 20.1.2002 by one G. Munuswamy, father of M. Sathishkumar, 9th Standard student, about your act of beating that student with chappals. .(4) Similarly, a complaint dated 112. .(2) A complaint dated 16. 2001 by one Kanniappan, grandfather of R. Kalidas, 9th Standard student, about your act of kicking and beating that student. .(3) A complaint dated 20.1.2002 by one G. Munuswamy, father of M. Sathishkumar, 9th Standard student, about your act of beating that student with chappals. .(4) Similarly, a complaint dated 112. 2003 by one E. Munuswamy, father of M. Rajasekar, 9th Standard student, about your act of beating that student with rule bar." 7. It will be evident that the complainants were the parents and guardians of the students of IX and X Standards. One of the complaints which is dated 12. 2005, which is grave in nature, i.e., Charge No.1, was made by one V.A. Murugan, father of Selvan M. Rameshkumar, a student of the X Standard. The other three complaints dated 16. 2001, 20.1.2002 and 112. 2003, were made by the guardians of three other students, viz., one Kanniappan, who is the grandfather of a IX Standard student; one G. Munuswamy, who is the father of another IX Standard student; and one E. Munuswamy, who is the father of yet another IX Standard student. The complaints in general reflect the attitude of the third respondent, a Teacher, of kicking and beating the students in different teaching years, i.e., 2001, 2002 and 2003. The allegation of the year 2005 is most heinous. If that charge is proved, such a teacher actually should not be retained in the school. 8. From the enquiry report dated 5. 2006, it will be evident that all the four complainants, viz., V.A. Murugan, Kanniappan, G. Munuswamy and E. Munuswamy, were witnesses in the said proceeding. They participated in the enquiry and were cross-examined by the third respondent in the charge enquiry. Some material exhibits, i.e., a complaint against the third respondent made by different students of X Standard; a letter of the co-teachers; and the Minutes of the School Committee Meeting held on 21. 2006 were also produced as evidence on behalf of the Management of R.K. Mission School. Some material exhibits, i.e., a complaint against the third respondent made by different students of X Standard; a letter of the co-teachers; and the Minutes of the School Committee Meeting held on 21. 2006 were also produced as evidence on behalf of the Management of R.K. Mission School. It is only after going through the statement of the witnesses and the evidence available on record, the Secretary of the R.K. Mission School decided that the punishment of termination of the third respondents service was proportionate to the gravity of the charges; but as a lenient measure, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 9. In our opinion, the charges are so serious, that even if a X Standard student, Selvan M. Ramesh Kumar, was asked to appear and depose in the enquiry, we have a doubt whether such a minor boy would have been in a position to depose as a witness in the said enquiry. In such a case, if the students have highlighted their agony before their respective guardians such as father or grandfather, as the case may be, and the guardians, who were the complainants, have been examined as witnesses in the enquiry and on that basis, if the charges have been found to have been proved, we find no illegality in the same. 10. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, particularly the gravity of the charges and the leniency shown by the Management of the appellant-R.K. Mission School, we are of the view that the first respondent ought not have issued the order dated 312. 2007, disapproving the order imposing a punishment of stoppage of increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect on the third respondent. We also find that the learned single Judge failed to take into consideration the aforesaid facts before affirming the order passed by the first respondent. 11. We accordingly set aside the order dated 28. 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.11972 of 2008 and also the order dated 312. 2007 passed by the first respondent-Joint Director of School Education (Secondary Education) and allow the writ petition and the present writ appeal as preferred by the appellant-R.K. Mission School. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2008 is closed.