T.HARIHARAN Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-415
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 13,2020

T.Hariharan Appellant
VERSUS
CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (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 3 rd 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.