SECRETARY, SCHOOL COMMITTEE, THIRUVALLUVAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL versus THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 02-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SECRETARY, SCHOOL COMMITTEE, THIRUVALLUVAR 
B 
c 
HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL 
V. 
THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
APRIL 2, 2003 
[SHIVA RAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973/Tamil 
Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974-Section 22(/) 
and (2)/Rule 17-Termination of service-Proposal by school management-
Refusal to accord approval by competent authority looking into proportionality 
of punishmem--Direction for reinstatement of employee with back wages-
D Dismissal of appeals and writ petition of the school management-
Superannuation of employee during pendency of case-On appeal-Held : 
Order of authorities declining to accord approval does not suffer from 
iljfirmity-Authority had jurisdiction to decide the proportionality of punishment 
because while considering adequate and reasonable grounds for according 
approval authority is required to look into the gravity of proved charges and 
E their proportionality to the proposed punishment-In view of the facts of the 
case 60% of salary for the concerned period shall be proper. 
Charges were framed against the employee-respondent that he had 
failed to discharge his duties diligently. The School Committee decided to 
F terminate his services and hence it applied to the competent authorities 
for approval of the termination order. The authority after conducting 
eQquiry, did not accord approval to the proposed order of termination 
on the ground that the allegations which constituted foundation for 
proposed order of termination, were not so grave as to warrant 
punishment like dismissal. Appeal of Management to the Joint Director 
G of School Education was rejected. The authority asked the Management 
for reinstatement of the employee with back wages. On the plea that since 
the employee had abandoned work he could not he reinstated, .the 
Management filed revision before State Government and the same was 
dismissed. Also unable to succeed before the single Judge and the Division 
Bench of the High Court, Management has preferred the present appeal. 
H 
282 
SECTY, SCH COMM., THIRUVALLUVARHIGHERSEC SCH "· GO\"f. OF TAMIL NADU(U.P) 
283 
Appellant-Management contended that at the stage of consideration A 
under Section 22(1) and (2) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools 
(Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rule 17(1) of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private 
Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 there is no scope for looking into the 
proportionality aspect and as such the action of the authorities was beyond 
jurisdiction; that if adequate and reasonable grounds existed for the action B 
then no other question needed to be looked into; that even assuming that 
the authorities had jurisdiction, they decided the matter without 
application of mind; that if quantum of punishment was permitted to be 
considered, it would partake character of an appeal; and that the direction 
for back wages in its entirety was not justified because the employee 
absented from duty without sanction of leave for long periods and even C 
on some dates he went away during the school hours and abandoned the 
classes on several days. 
During the pendency of the appeal, the employee was superannuated. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The order of the authorities declining to accord approval 
does not suffer from any infirmity. It is not correct to say that at the stage 
D 
of consideration under Section 22(1) and 22(2) of Tamil Nadu Recognised 
Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rule 17(1) of Tamil Nadu 
Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, there is no scope for E 
looking into the proportionality of punishment aspect. What an authority 
is required to do at that stage is to sec whether the proposed punishment 
is to be approved. Obviously, it has to consider whether the punishment 
as proposed is proper one; otherwise there is no need for seeking its 
approval. The crucial words used in sub-section (2) of Section 22 are 
"adequate and reasonable ground" for the proposal. The proposal relates 
to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or otherwise termination of 
appointment of any teacher or any other person employed in a private 
school. While considering whether adequate and reasonable ground exist 
F 
for giving approval, the authority is c_ertainly required to look into the 
gravity of the proved charges and whether the punishment as proposed G 
commensurates with it. Any other i

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