Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1013 (MAD)

T. Hariharan v. Chief Educational Officer, Theni

2020-07-13

R.SURESH KUMAR

body2020
ORDER : R. Suresh Kumar, J. 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent vide his impugned proceedings Letter No. Z1/5010/2020 dated 24.03.2020 and quash the same as illegal. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Manickam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. S. Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and also Mr. K. Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for RR3 to 5. 3. The short facts, leading to filing of this writ petition, are as follows: The petitioner is a teacher working under the 3rd respondent school. While so, on 24.03.2020, the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent school on an alleged charge against the petitioner and pursuant to which. an enquiry is contemplated. Thereafter, it seems that the enquiry is not completed, however, the suspension continues till date. Only in this context, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition to quash the said suspension order on the ground that, under the provision of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "Act", if the teacher is placed under suspension, on contemplating of any disciplinary proceedings, for two months period, within which, the enquiry should be completed and if at all, the enquiry is not completed by the disciplinary authority within the two months period, the school concerned shall make a request to the educational authorities to extend the period of suspension for a further period of two months and the educational authorities also, on consideration of the request to be made by the school Management, for completion of the disciplinary proceedings already initiated against the teacher, can extend the suspension period for a further period of two months and therefore, altogether, 2 + 2 i.e. only for 4(four) months period, a teacher can be placed under suspension, within which, it is expected that the disciplinary proceedings should be completed, otherwise, the teacher shall be entitled to get his/her suspension order revoked and be reinstated unmindful of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Only on this ground, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed the point that in this case, apparently, no extension beyond two months period of suspension having been made by the specific orders of the official respondents, hence the two months period of suspension is lapsed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has relied upon Section 22(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, which reads as under: "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 completed 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." 5. By relying upon the aforesaid Section of the Act, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the suspension order was made on 24.03.2020 and it takes effect from that date. Therefore, two months period would be over by 23.05.2020, beyond which, if at all, the petitioner has to be kept under suspension by citing the reason that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is not over, such a request has to be made by the 3rd respondent to the official respondents, but, on considering the said request, the period of suspension could have been extended for a further two months period, which would also be ended on 23.07.2020. 6. 6. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that, no such extension so far has been given by the authorities and it is doubtful whether any such request has been made by the 3rd respondent school, seeking such extension of suspension from the official respondents and if no such attempt is made and no such extension of suspension is given, beyond the two months period i.e., after 23.05.2020 placing the petitioner under prolonged suspension is unlawful and that will go contra to the aforesaid provision of the Act referred to above and therefore, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be interfered with. 7. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit that, there is a grave charge against the petitioner, for which, an enquiry has been contemplated and due to COVID 19 period, the enquiry could not be completed and already it has been written by the 3rd respondent school to the official respondents to extend the suspension under the proviso to Section 22(3)(b) of the Act referred to above and such a request made by the 3rd respondent is still pending with the official respondents. Therefore, on the ground of lapse of two months period of suspension from 24.03.2020, the petitioner cannot seek any shelter and on this ground, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that, no order so far has been passed extending the suspension period beyond the two months as per the proviso to Section 22(3)(b) of the Act. 9. When this matter came up for hearing before my predecessor on 09.06.2020, the following interim order has been passed: "Mrs. Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr. K. Prabhu, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents 3 to 5. 2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been placed under suspension without obtaining any formal permission from the Chief Educational Officer. Further, it is stated that the period of suspension of the petitioner has crossed the statutory period. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents however stated that the entire records had been forwarded to the District Educational Officer, Theni and the same has been kept pending in that particular office. 4. Further, it is stated that the period of suspension of the petitioner has crossed the statutory period. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents however stated that the entire records had been forwarded to the District Educational Officer, Theni and the same has been kept pending in that particular office. 4. Therefore, if the petitioner has been placed under suspension beyond the statutory period, without obtaining formal permission from the Chief Educational Officer/District Educational Officer, then, the respondents would naturally be obliged to pay the petitioner entire emoluments as would have been payable, if not kept under suspension. These facts can be decided on the basis of the counter affidavit to be filled by the respondents. 5. List the matter on 10.07.2020 for filing such counter affidavit." 10. Therefore, the controversy as to whether two months suspension period initially made against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent school by the impugned order dated 24.3.2020 was subsequently extended at the request of the 3rd respondent school for a period of further two months itself is a question. Therefore, the learned judge observed that if such extension is not made, keeping the petitioner under suspension beyond the two months period, would make the petitioner entitle to claim full salary as the suspension period of two months was over, beyond which, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension without the authority of law. 11. Be that as it may, assuming that the request of the 3rd respondent to seek extension of suspension beyond two months has already been made, even though, no such proof has been filed before this Court. Such a request claimed to have been made by the 3rd respondent and pending before the official respondents so far since have not been acted. Even assuming that, if it has been acted and the extension has been given, that extension of the suspension period can only for further two months period i.e., beyond 23.05.2020 and it will be over by 23.07.2020. At any rate, beyond 23.07.2020, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension unless and until the 3rd respondent school, being the disciplinary authority, complete the enquiry and pass final order. No such proof so far has been filed by the 3rd respondent school as to the progress of the enquiry claimed to have been initiated against the petitioner teacher. At any rate, beyond 23.07.2020, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension unless and until the 3rd respondent school, being the disciplinary authority, complete the enquiry and pass final order. No such proof so far has been filed by the 3rd respondent school as to the progress of the enquiry claimed to have been initiated against the petitioner teacher. Therefore, in all probability, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is not likely to complete before 23.07.2020. Therefore, assuming that the two months period of initial suspension and further two months extension to be given by the authorities, together four months, is taken into account, it would be ended on 23.07.2020 beyond which, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension or his suspension cannot be extended beyond that day. 12. In view of the aforesaid factual as well as the legal position, this Court is of the view that, the continuous suspension on the part of the petitioner beyond the statutory period as has been contemplated under Section 22(3)(b) of the Act is unlawful. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order for the reason that the impugned order of suspension admittedly has not been extended by the official respondents as no such proof has been filed before this Court. Therefore, it shall be presumed that, no valid extension of suspension has been made by the official respondents at the request of the 3rd respondent school. In this regard, the 3rd respondent school is also not in a position to produce any communication as to whether they have made any considerable progress in the enquiry initiated against the petitioner and in view of want of time, the enquiry could not be completed, therefore, they sought for further extension of two months period to complete the enquiry. 13. Based on the available documents and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, that atleast beyond 23.07.2020, the petitioner cannot be kept under suspension, the following directions are issued: "that the impugned order of suspension since has not been extended by the official respondents beyond two months period as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law, such suspension order is no more valid one beyond two months period. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed, since the two months period was over by 23.05.2020, beyond which, the continuous suspension of the petitioner is unlawful. Therefore, beyond such period, the petitioner is entitled to get full salary. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent school shall claim the salary and to pay to the petitioner. The disposal of this writ petition with the above direction shall not stand in the way for the 3rd respondent to proceed with the enquiry, which they have already initiated against the petitioner and such enquiry can be permitted to go on and to reach its logical conclusion in the manner known to law. 14. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.