BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19/08/2006 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.6676 of 2006 W.P.(MD)No.6712 of 2006 and Connected Miscellaneous petitions D. Gnanasekaran ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6676 of 2006 M.Anantharamasubramanian ... Petitioner in W.P.No.6712 of 2006 Vs. The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issued a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order of suspension of the petitioners from service made by the respondent by his proceedings in R.C.No.3315/B4/2006 dated 24.3.2006and quash the same. !For Petitioners .... Mr. S.Nagamuthu ^For Respondent .... Mrs.Jessi Jeeva Priya Special Government Pleader :ORDER
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 under
section 174 Crl.P.C. was originally registered by the Inspector of Police
against the petitioners, which was subsequently altered into one under Section
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.
5. 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.
6. 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 behaviour fo 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Admittedly, petitioners, who are teachers have involved in criminal
cases more particularly in a case registered under section 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
under section 302 IPC.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Here in this case, the petitioners, instead of teaching good
behaviour 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.
13. (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 others), 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 benefiter. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Since the petitioners herein are admittedly accused in the criminal
cases including for the offence under section 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
vr
To
The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
