Madras High Court: M. Duraiswamy, J., while addressing a petition that was filed in pursuance of the impugned order of termination of a Polytechnic Principal based on an enquiry under which certain charges were laid down which included the charge of “indulging in Homo-Sexual activities” with the polytechnic students.
In the present petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was working as the Principal of Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Polytechnic and was suspended by 1st respondent which was further confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
The petitioner was at first suspended by 1st respondent based on a pending enquiry against him under Section 42 of the Special by-laws. The charges laid down against him were all proved except for charge number 3 and 7. Following is the gist of charges against the petitioner:
- Misappropriation of funds by preparing bogus vouchers
- Misappropriation of funds by refunding lesser amount to the former students
- Misappropriation of scholarship amount by paying lesser scholarship amount
- Indulged in Homo-sexual activities with the polytechnic students.
- Derogatory remarks writing in filthy language against the teaching staff in the notice board and allowed the students to read.
- Arranged to refund the fees without any authority and without following the formalities and incurred loss to the Polytechnic.
- Failed to inform the students about their selection to the group/trade who attended the interview
- Admitted the students for admission in the management quota those who were not the heir of the cane growers/employees.
- Deceived the Govt. and management allowing a student for admission in the administrative quota
High Court, considering the above, stated that
Person with such conduct and character who indulged in homosexual activities with the polytechnic students cannot be allowed to continue in employment, that too, as a Principal of a Polytechnic Institute.
Petitioner had also made derogatory remarks, writing in filthy language against the teaching staff in the notice board and had allowed the students to read, which would establish that the petitioner is unfit to continue as the Principal of the Polytechnic Institute.
Bench relied on the case of Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, (1997) 2 SCC 534, wherein it was held that,
“…it is necessary to consider the need for education and the place of the teacher.”
“The citizen, as a duty, should renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women; value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture; protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compass in for living creatures.”
“…the teacher was placed on the pedestal below the parents. The State has taken care of service conditions of the teacher and he owed dual fundamental duties to himself and to the society.”
“quality, competence and character of the teacher are, most significant for the efficiency of the education system as pillar of built democratic institutions and to sustain them in their later years of life”
In the above-cited case, the Court stated the following with respect to “Enquiry”:
“Enquiry is not a panacea but a nail on the coffin. It is self-inspection and correction that is supreme.”
Thus, in the present petition, the Court in view of the above stated that the order of termination of the Principal is proper and no error or irregularity with the same is to be found. [D. Ganesan v. Dharmapuri District Coop. Sugar Mills Polytechnic, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 9942, decided on 11-11-2019]
