MANAGER, NIRMALA SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, PORT BLAIR versus N.I. KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 21-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

.,,,/ 
MANAGER, NIRMALA SENIOR SECONDARY 
SCHOOL, PORT BLAIR 
., 
v. 
N.I. KHAN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 
(SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT. JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 30 {I)-Suspension of teacher by 
management for misconduct-State disapproving the suspension on ground 
A 
B 
of not obtaining itNlr(or approval-Termination of the teacher by school C 
after conducting discipl~nr;ry p,1:0,ceedings-Validity of-Held, on facts, 
without going into the all~gg~~<wiand considering the welfare of the school 
and the teacher, order of termination to become operative on payment of 
Rs.4,50,000 to the teacher jointly by the State and the School-Delhi 
Education Code, 1965. 
D 
Respondent No.1-teacMr allegedly abused and attempted to as-
sault lady principal of appellant's school. The teacher was suspended 
from the school on the same day. After a few days, the teacher allegedly 
picked up a quarrel again with the management and threatened to E 
burn the school. The respondent-State revoked the suspension order 
issued by the appellant and indicated that a separate enquiry will be 
conducted by the State against the teacher. The appellant objected to 
the proposed enquiry by the State being infringement of constitutional 
protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The State 
did not respond to the permission sought by the appellant for sanction- F 
ing the suspension of the teacher. A fresh order of suspension was 
issued by the appellant to the teacher framing charges against him. The 
State reversed the order of suspension of the appellant since no prior 
approval was obtained. An Inquiry Officer was appointed by the 
appellant to inquire into the charges framed. The teacher refused to G 
attend the inquiry. The appellant held the teacher guilty of charges 
framed against him since he did not attend the inquiry despite granting 
several opportunities to him. The appellant constituted a punishing 
authority for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the teacher 
and requested the State to nominate its representative for the proceed- H 
75 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
• .\ ings. The State refused to send its nominee since the suspension order 
was passed by the appellant without prior approval of the State. By 
a majority decision, the teacher was dismissed from the school. The 
teacher filed a Writ Petition before High Court challenging the order 
of dismissal issued by the appellant. Single Judge of the High Court 
B quashed the order of dismissal and directed payment of back wag<'s 
to the teacher. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the 
appeal and the review petition filed by the appellant. 
In appeal, the appellant-School contended that the respondent 
C State cannot apply the Delhi Education Code, 1965 in contravention 
to the_ constitutional protection guaranteed to it under Article 30(1) of 
the Constitution of India; that a fair and transparent procedure was 
adopted in conducting the inquiry and adequate opportunity was given 
to respondent no. 1 before issuing the order of dismissal; and that the 
continuance of respondent no. 1 in the school was undesirable and 
D would have adverse effects since the allegations are of a serious nature. 
The respondents contended that the Delhi EducatiQn Code, 1965 
is applicable in following the procedure of termination of a teacher; 
that constitutional protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution 
E is not available to the school being an aided school; and that the 
proceedings was initiated by the appellant with bias. 
Disposing of the appeals with certain directions, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. This Court does not propose to go into the question of 
F constitutional protection under Article 30(1) of the Constitution oflndia. 
The allegation made against the respondent no. I-teacher are of a 
serious nature and certainly, if proved, do not befit a teacher. The clay 
like mind of young children are shaped into beautiful moulds by teachers. 
They shape future course of the students. To a great measure, their 
G behaviour, character, reputation leave imprints in the minds of the young 
children. If their conduct, behaviour and reputation is full of blemish 
that would not be for the interest and in the welfare of the students. It 
is not necessary to opine on the allegations one way or the other. This 
litigation has continued unabated for long years. It would neither be in 
H the interest of the teacher nor the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.