A RAMASWAMI AYYANGAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HE application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing certain orders under which the services of the petitioner (A. Ramaswami Aiyangar) were dispensed with by the management of the St. Andrews Higher Elementary School, manapparai (third respondent) involves certain issues of interest. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as a headmaster of the third respondent school on 9-6-1947. Charges were first framed against him on certain disciplinary grounds, on 9-1-1956. Certain of these charm were cancelled and recast, and fresh charges were issued on 3-3-1956. Subsequently, the petitioner was reduced as an Assistant in the same school with effect from 8-3-1956. The petitioner appealed to the District Educational Officer, Tiruchi on 26-3-1956. On 10-7-1956, the Manager of the institution framed, charges upon other facts. and asked the petitioner to submit an explanation to them on or before 15-7-1956. Admittedly, the petitioner wrote on 13-7-1956 wanting some further time, but this request was refused. Finally, the management gave the petitioner notice for three months with effect from 10-7-1950 and terminated his services, apparently holding the charges proved, in the absence of any satisfactory or adequate explanation. The petitioner appeared to the District Educational Officer, Tiruchi, on 31-7-1956, and later to the Divisional Inspector of Schools. Coimbatore. On 17-6-1958. By disposal No. 1185 of 1958, The Divisional inspector of School rejected this appeal in other words. the petitioners sought to appeal, under the rules governing such aided institutions, to certain officers of Government, such as the District educational Officer and the Divisional Inspector of School who had power to review the proceedings of the management and to grant the petitioner redress. But he pursued those remedies in vain, and he failed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner (Sri Venugopalachariar) has urged two grounds, only, as the basis of his argument that this court should now interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the proceedings dispensing with the services of the petitioner. Both these grounds are founded upon certain rules in the rules relating to the elementary schools published by the Government of Madras. Under Rule 13 (2) (ii) (b) the class et teachers referred to in those rules could be dismissed "with three months" notice, or three months. salary in lien thereof, for any of the following reasons, namely, "wilful neglect of duty, serious misconduct, gross insubordination, mental unfitness. incompetence retrenchment. physical unfitness or any other good cause. "

(3.) IT is now submitted before me that the petitioner was denied redress in two matters, coming within the first and second provision to Rule 13 (2) (ii) (b)extracted above. Under the first proviso, the teacher has to be informed in writing of the charges against him, and this was undoubtedly done in the present case. The proviso further specifies that "the statement made, by the teacher, if any, shall he taken into consideration before a final decision is taken by the management. " This also seems to have been done in the sense that a belated explanation from the petitioner was taken into consideration before the notice dispensing with his services given. But there is another part of his proviso that "the teacher shall be given a reasonable opportunity for stating his case in writing or in person". The argument is that this rule was not complied with, since the petitioner was given time for only five days for the preparation and submission of his full explanation on the charges. which involved one or two matters of accounting, and it is stressed that this was not in consonance with principles of natural justice. The second proviso, which is the other ground of the application, enunciates that "before the issue of the notice the Deputy Inspector of Schools should be consulted and his approval obtained by the management about the propriety of such an action". In the present case, this proviso was also formally complied with in the sense that, as early as the preceding May, the approval of the Deputy inspector of Schools had been obtained for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner upon two charges. The grievance of the petitioner is that this was a long time prior to the actual formulation of the present charges in July, and that permission was not specifically obtained from that officer for taking disciplinary action with regard to the matter which formed the subject of the subsequent charges.