AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner joined the first Respondent School as a Tamil Pandit on 04.11.1985.
There was a matrimonial dispute in his family and his daughter-in-law made a complaint that she was harassed for dowry by the Petitioner, his
wife and his son. Her complaint was registered as First Information Report in Crime No. 26/2003 on the file of the Tuticorin All Women Police
Station under Sections 498(A), 420, 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Initially, the criminal case was closed as mistake of
fact. However, again the Petitioner was taken into custody on 11.03.2005 and he was released on bail on 01.04.2005.
While so, the first Respondent placed the Petitioner under suspension by an order dated 19.04.2005 with effect from 11.03.2005. He reached
the age of superannuation on 30.06.2006.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin convicted the Petitioner in C.C. No. 363/2005 and sentenced him for two years Rigorous
Imprisonment. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, Tuticorin and the same was confirmed and thereafter, he filed revision and
the revision is pending before this Court. Based on the conviction, he was removed from service by an order dated 12.12.2006.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, since the suspension was not extended for two months by the Authority, the Petitioner is
deemed to have been in service as per Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (in short herein after referred to as
the Act""). As the Respondents kept the Petitioner under suspension even after two months from 11.03.2005, he has filed the present writ petition
to quash the suspension order dated 19.04.2005.
The first Respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations. It is stated that he was on medical leave from 27.09.2003 to 20.11.2003.
After the expiry of medical leave he did not join duty and also he did not apply for extension of medical leave. He joined duty only on 15.07.2004.
The Petitioner agreed to waive salary for the period from 21.11.2003 to 14.07.2004.
While so, it seems that he was detained by the police on 11.03.2005, based on the complaint given by her daughter-in-law and he was released
on bail on 01.04.2005. But the Petitioner did not disclose about his detention by the police authorities. When the school came to know about the
detention from the police authorities, the Petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 19.04.2005 with effect from 11.03.2005.
It is stated that the Educational Authorities gave permission for extension of suspension for two more months. It is also stated that when the
school wanted him to furnish details about the criminal case by sending letters dated 10.05.2005 and 03.08.2005, the Petitioner did not choose to
inform the school about the stage of the criminal case.
The School wrote a letter dated 23.09.2005 to the Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin as to whether the Petitioner could be continued in
suspension until the criminal case is over or he could be reinstated in service. There was no reply from the third Respondent.
In these circumstances, the Petitioner was continued in suspension. The Petitioner is not entitled to any salary after four months. As far as four
months are concerned, the Petitioner was offered subsistence allowance by sending letters and the Petitioner did not choose to collect the same.
Hence, the subsistence allowance is kept in the general fund of the School and the School is willing to pay the subsistence allowance for four
months, at any time, whenever the Petitioner comes to collect the same. The first Respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
The second Respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that since the Petitioner was remanded from police custody for more than 48 hours,
there is nothing wrong in placing the Petitioner under suspension, as per the Rule 17(2) (v) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools
(Regulation) Rules, 1974 (in short herein after referred to as ""the Rules""). As per the Rule 17(2)(v), subsistence allowance could be paid only for a
maximum period of four months and the department released the subsistence allowance for four months in the form of grant. It is stated that the
Petitioner could seek remedy against the Management of the School for the remaining period.
Heard both sides.
The Petitioner was placed under suspension by the first Respondent by an order dated 19.04.2005 with effect from 11.03.2005, as he was in
custody for more than 48 hours. A criminal case was also pending against him. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2006. When the
criminal case was pending, he was not restored to duty after four months of the suspension.
The Petitioner sought for quashing of the suspension order and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that no such suspension
shall remain in force for more than a period of two months as per Section 22 of the Act. Hence, the issue is as to whether the first Respondent
School could keep the Petitioner under suspension even after four months, contrary to Section 22 of the Act.
According to the first Respondent, the Petitioner was convicted on 01.11.2006 and he was removed from service on 12.12.2006 and it is not
in dispute that the Petitioner filed an appeal against the conviction which is also dismissed and thereafter, he filed a revision and the same is pending
and we are not concerned with the order of removal which was passed on 12.12.2006. We are concerned with the order of suspension beyond
four months up to 30.06.2006, the date of superannuation.
Section 22(3) of the Act, places restriction on the School to keep the teacher under suspension beyond a period of four months. Initially, a
teacher could be placed under suspension for two months and thereafter, with the permission of the concerned authority, the suspension could be
extended for two more months.
In this case, the second Respondent has stated that, the suspension was extended for two more months. Hence, the suspension order is valid
for four months. After four months, the first Respondent is not justified in keeping the Petitioner under suspension.
Section 22(3) of the Act is extracted hereunder:
(3)(a) No teacher or other person employed in any private School shall be placed under suspension, except when an enquiry into the gross
misconduct, within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 21, of such teacher or other person is
contemplated.
(b) No such representation shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such enquiry is not
completed within that period, such teacher or other person shall, without prejudice to the enquiry, 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 enquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for
reasons directly attributable to such teacher and other person.
Section 22 of the Act was enacted keeping the interest of the students. If teachers are kept under suspension indefinitely, that would affect the
students, that is why the restriction is made in Section 22(3) as to the period of suspension.
Suppose if the first Respondent School has kept the teacher beyond four months period, the School is bound to pay full salary to the teacher,
whether Section 22(3) applies to the first Respondent School or not. But the School states that the school wrote a letter dated 23.09.2005 to the
Chief Educational Officer, Tuticorin seeking clarification as to whether the Petitioner should be kept under suspension or he should be reinstated in
service pending the criminal case. But there was no reply from the third Respondent. That could not be a reason to deny wages for the period
during which he was kept out of employment. The decision to keep the Petitioner under suspension was taken by the first Respondent School. The
Respondent authorities did not issue any direction to the School to keep the Petitioner under suspension beyond four months. It is true that the
authorities did not send reply to the letter dated 23.09.2005, sent by the school seeking clarification. But that could not absolve the first
Respondent School from paying full salary beyond four months period of suspension.
It has been categorically held by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 286 of 2005, in similar circumstances, ""it is true
that it may be open to the employer to keep the Appellant/teacher under suspension if the Management does not want to avail the services of the
Appellant. In that case, though the Management can prevent the employee from attending to his duties, it will be obliged to pay full salary for the
period beyond four months"".
As far as subsistence allowance for four months is concerned, the Petitioner is directed to collect the same from the School.
In view of the judgment of this Court dated 08.08.2005, in Writ Appeal No. 286 of 2005, the impugned order dated 19.04.2005 of the first
Respondent, keeping the Petitioner under suspension beyond four months without paying full wages is illegal and the first Respondent is directed to
pay full salary for the period beyond four months till 30.06.2006 within a period of 12 weeks from today.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.