IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.08.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN
W.P.No.10296 of 2010 &
M.P.No.1 of 2010
X.Jayaseelan ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director,
Elementary Educational Officer,
College Road, Chennai 6.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Salem - 7.
3. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagurpuram, Salem 636 006.
4. The Secretry,
Balakrishna Vilas Aided Elementary School,
Dhadhakapatti, Salem - 6 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Lr.No.8 of 2009 dated 16.11.2009 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran
For Respondents 1 - 3 : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan
Government Advocate
For Respondent 4 : Mr.P.Godson Swaminath
O R D E R
The petitioner is a Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the fourth respondent by an order dated 16.11.2009. The fourth respondent is a private aided school and it is governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973 (in short “the Act”) and the rules framed thereunder.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the fourth respondent.
3. Notice of motion was ordered on 13.05.2010.
4. The fourth respondent filed counter affidavit.
5. Heard Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.P.Godson Swaminath, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as during argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised very many grounds attacking the order of suspension. In view of the order that is passed thereunder, I have not dealt all those contentions.
7. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the employer has an inherent right to place the employee under suspension. But the only impediment on them is that they should pay salary for the period of suspension. That is, according to him, if the school keeps the teacher under suspension on its own volition, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding without complying with section 22 (3) of the Act, the school, it is bound to pay the entire salary and not the mere substance allowance. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent further submits that the school is willing to pay full salary from the date of suspension till the finalisation of the disciplinary proceeding. That is, till the authority passes order relating to the approval sought for by the school on the punishment, if any, that is to be imposed on the petitioner, the fourth respondent undertakes to pay full salary.
8. In view of the aforesaid contentions of the fourth respondent, I am not going into other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent agrees to pay arrears of wages within a period of three weeks. The fourth respondent is directed to pay arrears of wages from the date of suspension till 31.07.2010 within a period of three weeks from today and the third respondent is further directed to pay every month salary on or before 5th of every month, thereafter.
10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
r n s
To
1. The Director,
Elementary Educational Officer,
College Road, Chennai 6.
2. The District Elementary Educational Officer,
Salem – 7.
3. The Additional Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Nagurpuram, Salem 636 006.
4. The Secretry,
Balakrishna Vilas Aided Elementary School,
Dhadhakapatti,
Salem 6