Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) 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 controversy lies within a narrow compass and factual position being undisputed, a brief reference thereto would suffice.
(2.) The 5th respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was appointed as P.G. Assistant for teaching English in 1978. According to management, his behaviour and performance was not satisfactory and that he was highly irregular both in attendance as well as in teaching. A memorandum was sent to him and to another teacher on 14-1-1983 stating therein that they would be required to pass examination conducted 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. From 1-12-1984, the employee did not attend school. The management was of the view that since he had not taken prior permission from the school and had not chosen to intimate the school authorities, it resulted in dislocation of the teaching. Prior to his long absence, he had not been taking classes regularly. The students were put to grave and irreparable loss and hardship. Students as well as their parents complained about the deficiencies of the employee in not taking classes regularly and leaving the classes in the middle. He had also not completed portions of the lessons for the 11th standard. Several requests were made to the employees to attend classes, but he turned down their requests. On 29-8-1984, the management issued another memo to him seeking a clarification as to whether he had passed the Tamil examination. On 31-8-1984, the management issued another memo to the employee stating therein that since he had not 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. Charges were framed and the employee was called upon to submit his reply to the charge. Another memo was issued on 30-10-1984 containing similar charges. Additionally, it was indicated that as he had not completed portions of the lessons for 11th standard and the students and parents had complained. He was required to show cause in respect of the allegations. On 24-1-1985 memo of charges was also issued to him, inter alia, indicating that since he had not 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 not taken classes regularly, there was serious dislocation of work and inconvenience to the students. On 13-3-1985, the show cause notice 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 not be terminated for violation of code of conduct prescribed for teachers employed in private schools. Another copy of the show cause notice was served through another mode on 9-4-1985. The employee did not respond to the show cause notice. Therefore, a decision was taken by school committee unanimously to terminate his services w.e.f. 1-12-1984, the date from which he had stoped attending the school. On 9-5-1985, letter was written to the Chief Educational Officer, respondent No. 3 (in short the CEO) seeking his approval for termination of employees services in terms of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 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.
(3.) The DEO issued a notice to the employee but there was no response thereto. On 3-12-1985, DEO sent a report to the CEO, inter alia, indicating that the employee had not denied any of the charges and since the management had produced materials in support of the charges, sanction for dismissal should be granted. On 21-4-1987, an enquiry was conducted by the authorities and the employee was called to the school. But he did not make any effective participation. Again, an enquiry was conducted by the CEO on 23-4-1987. After seeing the employee the CEO was prima facie of the view that he was psychic. Finally, on 24-4-1987 the CEO passed an order refusing permission for termination on the ground that the allegations which constituted foundation for the proposed order of termination, were not so grave as to warrant punishment like dismissal. Therefore, permission was refused. 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). The appeal was rejected, inter alia, observing that though the employee did not give any reply to the charges as against him though he appeared before the CEO twice, yet the charges were not so grave as to warrant dismissal. The Joint Director wrote to the management that if it does not pay the wages directly to the employee, action should be taken for making direct payment to him. On 9-3-1988, CEO asked the management for reinstatement of the employee with back wages. Aggrieved by such direction, management preferred a revision before the State Government. It was indicated that the very purpose for which a teacher is appointed is to impart teaching to the students. If the teacher was deficient in teaching and was irregular in taking classes, that is a very serious matter warranting termination of services. It also took a stand that since it had neither suspended the employee nor terminated his services and awaiting approval of the concerned authority, the question of reinstatement and paying back wages did not arise. In fact, the employee had not worked and abandoned work. But the DEO again directed the management to reinstate the employee and pay him back wages failing which the steps regarding direct payment were to be taken.;