AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—When the matters were posted for admission on 3.8.2006, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
relying upon the reasons stated in the impugned order of suspension, requested this Court to direct the respondent to produce the preliminary
enquiry report submitted by the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, on 10.8.2006 the report of the
District Educational Officer, Pattukottai was produced before this Court. By consent of the learned Counsels of both sides, the main writ petitions
themselves are taken up for final disposal.
In these writ petitions, the impugned orders of suspension of the petitioners viz., D. Gnanasekaran, Physical Education Teacher and that of M.
Anantharamasubramanian, Secondary Grade Teacher at Government High School, Venkaraikottaikadu Village, Thanjavur District, dated
24.3.2006 are challenged.
The suspension orders in both the writ petitions are passed on identical grounds. The reason stated in the suspension orders is that a complaint
against the petitioners are under investigation in respect of their conduct in the School based on the report submitted by the District Educational
Officer, Pattukottai. The report was submitted after conducting a preliminary enquiry, in which prima facie evidence are established and therefore
under Clause (2) of Sub-rule (e) of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules the petitioners were placed under
suspension from their service with effect from 24.3.2006 until further orders. It is also stated therein that the reasons for such suspension cannot be
furnished in the larger public interest.
In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions it is stated that Cr. Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of 2006 were registered against the
petitioners by the Inspector of Police, Vattathikottai Police Station, Tanjore District under various sections of Indian Penal Code read with Section
3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is also stated in the affidavit that due to the death of a
student by name Vijay, on the complaint given by his father, a case in crime No. 39 of 2006 u/s 174 Cri.P.C. was originally registered by the
Inspector of Police against the petitioners, which was subsequently altered into one u/s 302 I.P.C. and the petitioners surrendered themselves
before the Criminal Court and obtained bail in all the above criminal cases and that the petitioners are now on bail.
The orders of suspension are attacked by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners on the ground that the impugned orders of
suspension do not spell out the reasons for suspension to satisfy anyone of the clauses of Rule 17(e) and the said orders do not spell out the nature
of the investigation alleged and what is the misconduct committed by the petitioners and that what are the evidences collected to make out a prima
facie case. It is also contended that the orders do not reflect the compelling necessity to place the petitioners under suspension from their service.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, there is no compelling need to place the petitioners under suspension in the public interest as
alleged.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai conducted
preliminary enquiry with regard to the death of one 7th standard student by name D. Vijay on 23.3.2006 due to the beating of the petitioners,
which led the student developing fits. In the preliminary enquiry report it is found that the petitioners in these writ petitions have beaten the said
deceased D. Vijay and 12 other students for about four to five times from 10.00 a.m. till lunch time. The petitioners indulged in such harsh method
on the ground that a fine amount of Rs. 100/- were collected on which Rs. 50/- was missing. It is also stated in the said report that on the
afternoon of 23.3.2006, the incharge Headmaster, after noticing the inhuman behavior of the petitioners, requested the petitioners not to beat the
students and requested them to send the students to the class room. The deceased Vijay went to his house to take lunch and after taking lunch, he
came back to the school and started writing the examination. During that time the deceased Vijay developed fits and intimation was given to the
incharge Headmaster, who in turn requested the petitioner in W.P. No. 6676 of 2006 to call the father of the deceased Vijay and he went to the
house of the deceased Vijay and brought the father of Vijay. Thereafter, the deceased Vijay was taken to the Government Hospital at Pattukottai
in a car. The Doctor, after examination declared that the said Vijay is dead. After knowing the said fact the village people expressed that due to the
beating of the petitioners the deceased student developed fits and therefore the petitioners are responsible for the death of the student Vijay. In the
report, it is further stated that the petitioners absconded from the place and the parents of the said deceased Vijay gave a police complaint and the
body was taken to the Government Hospital for post mortem and thereafter the body was taken to his native village for performing final rites.
Based on the report of the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai, the impugned orders of the suspension are issued.
I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as respondent and perused the FIRs as well
as the report of the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai.
From the facts narrated above, based on the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions and also on the basis of the report of the District
Educational Officer, Pattukottai, it has to be ascertained as to whether the impugned orders of suspension dated 24.3.2006 passed by the
respondent are justifiable or not.
Admittedly, petitioners, who are teachers have involved in criminal cases more particularly in a case registered u/s 302 I.P.C. Whether the
petitioners are to be punished for the alleged offences or not, will be known after the trial of the criminal cases are over. What is to be seen in these
cases is whether the respondent is justified in placing the petitioners under suspension pending investigation in respect of their conduct in the School
based on the report submitted by the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai and during the pendency of six criminal cases including the one for
the offence u/s 302 IPC.
The respondent has passed the impugned orders of suspension invoking Rule 17(e). For proper appreciation, Rule 17(e)(1)(i) & (ii) are
extracted hereunder.
Rule 17(e)(1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where-
(i) an enquiry into grave charges against him is contemplated, or is pending; or
(ii) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
A perusal of the above referred rule, particularly Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) makes it clear that if a complaint against a Government servant of any criminal
offence is under investigation or trial and if such suspension is necessary in the public interest, such member of the service can be placed under
suspension. In these cases, the impugned order cannot be treated to have been passed arbitrarily since the respondent has relied upon the report of
the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have indulged in the act of beating 12 students and one of the
student died subsequently. The development of fits by the deceased Vijay, may or may not have taken place due to the beating by the petitioners.
But, the petitioners, who are teachers, handling the students of 7th standard, have exceeded their limits in punishing the students in a corporal
manner and the same is even objected by the Headmaster in the School as reported by the District Educational Officer, Pattukottai in his report,
which was forwarded to the Director of School Education on 27.3.2006.
In an earlier decision dated 16.3.2006 in W.P. Nos. 5147 to 5149 and 5888 of 2006, I have observed that the students are sent to schools
by the parents with the fond hope that they will be taught morality and ethics, apart from education and the Teachers should be the role-model to
the students, who are spending most of their times in schools.
Here in this case, the petitioners, instead of teaching good behavior to the students, have indulged in beating the students and the students
sustained bleeding injuries and the petitioners are now accused of the offences punishable under various sections of Indian Penal Code like Section
302 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence the order of the respondent
cannot be treated as illegal or without any bais.
(a) The role of the teacher is explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 499 Manager, Nirmala
Senior Secondary School, Port Blair v. N.I. Khan and Ors., wherein the Honourable Supreme Court explained the role of the Teachers in
paragraphs 1 to 3, which read thus,
A teacher affects the eternity. He can never tell where his influence stops; said Henry Adam. Any educational institution for its growth and
acceptability to a large measure depends upon the quality of teachers.
Educational Institutions are temples of learning. The virtues of human intelligence are mastered and harmonised by education. Where there is
complete harmony between the teacher and the taught, where the teacher imparts and the student receives, where there is complete dedication of
the teacher and the taught in learning, where there is discipline between the teacher and the taught, where both are worshippers of learning, no
discord or challenge will arise. An educational institution runs smoothly when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the common ideal of pursuit
of knowledge. It is, therefore, manifest that the appointment of teachers is an important part in educational institutions. The qualifications and the
character of the teachers are really important.
The case at hand has some unfortunate shades as it involves alleged misconduct of a teacher and the purported desire of the management of an
educational institution to keep him out of the institution to maintain the purity in educational sphere and serene atmosphere of the institution....
(b) The role of a Teacher is also explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 183 (Andhra Kesari
Education Society v. Director of School Education), which reads thus,
Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the role of teachers is central to all processes of formal education. The teacher alone could
bring out the skills and intellectual capabilities of students. He is the ''engine'' of the educational system. He is a principal instrument in awakening
the child to cultural values. He needs to be endowed and energised with needed potential to deliver enlightened service expected of him. His
quality should be such as would inspire and motivate into action the benefited. He must keep himself abreast of ever changing conditions. He is not
to perform in a wooden and unimaginative way. He must eliminate fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse nobler and national ideas in
younger minds. His involvement in national integration is more important, indeed indispensable.
(c) The Teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young
children. The Teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos,
intellectual excellence and discipline.
From the above, it is clear that the role of a teacher is not only to teach intellectual excellence and discipline, but also he is duty bound to act like a
parent, which means, the teacher is not expected to do any harm to the students like a dutiful parent.
The involvement of the petitioners in six criminal cases, pursuant to which petitioners were suspended is definitely on public interest. It is well
settled in law that the offences committed under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code are offences against the State, which affects the whole
community. In that way, naturally public interest is attracted if any person commits offence under the Indian Penal Code and punishments are
imposed at the instance of the State for the interest of the Society in general. The criminal proceedings are conducted in the name of the State and
the guilty person is punished by the State. The act of violence is generally a menace to the safety of the Society and will therefore be punished by
the State. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are suspended without reference to public interest is
unsustainable and the argument on that score is liable to be rejected.
As the petitioners are involved in the criminal offences and the investigations are pending, the respondent thought it fit to suspend the petitioners
on public interest. A person is to be placed under suspension or not in a given case, pending investigation or trial of a criminal case has to be
decided only by the competent authority on public interest. Once the discretion given to the competent authority is exercised in a particular manner,
the said action of the authority is justified in view of the statutory provision contained in Rule 17(e)(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Sufficiency of the reason or otherwise to place a person under suspension cannot be gone into in writ proceedings.
It is like a discretion given to the authority to give promotion to a person against whom Section 17(b) charges are pending, as contemplated under
Rule 39(d) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The said rule is extracted hereunder,
Rule 39(d) Where it is necessary to promote an officer against whom an enquiry into allegations of corruption or misconduct is pending the
appointing authority may promote him temporarily pending enquiry into the charges against him. The competent authority shall have discretion to
make regular promotion in suitable cases.
No one can compel the authority to exercise the discretionary power in a particular manner unless it is established that the power exercised is
arbitrary and in discriminatory manner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order of suspension is without any basis.
Since the petitioners herein are admittedly accused in the criminal cases including for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C., the suspension orders dated
24.3.2006 passed by the respondent are valid. Prima facie, the petitioners have no right to serve as teachers, so long as they are not acquitted
from the criminal charges.
It is made clear that whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offence or not has to be decided only during the criminal trial and none
of the observations made in this order will have any effect in deciding the criminal investigation/trial, pending against the petitioners.
In the result, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders of suspension dated 24.3.2006 and consequently the writ
petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.