Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  12067 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 30610 of 2016)

Correspondent, Anaikar Oriental (Arabic) Higher Secondary School and Anr.  …Appellants

Versus

A. Haroon and Anr.        … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

    Leave granted.

2.      This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated

26.09.2016, passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras

in Writ Appeal No. 427 of 2016, whereby the Writ Appeal is

Page 2

Page 2 of 7

dismissed,  affirming  the  order  dated  20.03.2015  of  learned

Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 17838 of

2010.

3.  Brief  facts  of  the  case  are  that  respondent  no.1  (writ

petitioner)  was  P.G.  Assistant  in  Biology,  with  the  minority

institution  run  by  the  appellants.  It  is  pleaded  by  the

appellants that respondent no. 1 disobeyed the orders of the

Head Master (appellant no.2) and assaulted him.  He not only

failed to organize Science Club in the year 2002-2003, but also

failed  to  submit  Stock  Register  for  the  academic  year

2006-2007.  It  is  further  alleged  that  he  failed  to  submit

practical  notebooks of  students of  class X1 (in 2007).   It  is

further  alleged  that  in  February,  2008  respondent  no.  1

declined to hold XII standard Practical Examination. It is also

stated  that  respondent  no.  1  did  not  comply  with  the

instruction  of  the  Head  Master  to  participate  in  rain  water

harvest project. On 24.06.2008, respondent no. 1 said to have

hurled abuses at the Head Master, and assaulted him.

Page 3

Page 3 of 7

4. A charge memo was served on respondent no. 1 and he

was placed under suspension. After enquiry, his services were

terminated  on  01.09.2008.   He  preferred  an  appeal  before

respondent  no.  2,  i.e.  Joint  Director,  School  Education,

Chennai.  Respondent  no.1  simultaneously  filed Writ  Petition

No. 25980 of 2008 which was disposed of by the High Court on

03.11.2008  directing  the  second  respondent  to  consider  the

appeal  filed  by  the  respondent  no.  1.  Said  order  was  later

modified  on  24.03.2009,  observing  that  if  any  appellate

tribunal  is  constituted,  respondent  no.  2  shall  direct  the

respondent  no.  1  to  approach  such  authority.  Finally,

respondent  no.  2  considered  the  appeal  and  dismissed  the

same, vide order dated 09.06.2010, and regard being had to

the  conduct  of  the  employee  it  was held  that  there  was  no

illegality in the termination order.  On this respondent no. 1

filed Writ Petition No. 17838 of 2010, challenging the order of

termination, and the order passed by the appellate authority

(respondent no. 2).

Page 4

Page 4 of 7

5. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the above

writ  petition,  vide  order  dated  20.03.2015,  holding  that  the

principles  of  natural  justice  have  not  been  followed  in  the

present case.  It  is  observed that  management cannot  act  as

complainant, prosecution and judge.  The Division Bench, vide

impugned order, affirmed the order passed in the writ petition

No. 17838 of 2010.  

6. This  court,  on  28.10.2016,  after  hearing  the  learned

counsel for the parties, passed following order in the Special

Leave Petition (c) No. 30610 of 2016 ( from which this appeal

has arisen).  

“As  prayed  on  behalf  of  the  respondents,  let  the matter be listed after two weeks.

Till  the  next  date,  contempt  proceedings,  if  any, arising from the Impugned order shall remain stayed.

We may record here that there is a proposal made on behalf of the petitioners for a lump sum monentary payment between 40 to 50 lakhs by way of golden hand shake instead of reinstatement and back wages. Learned counsel for the respondent shall seek instruction on this issue”.

Page 5

Page 5 of 7

7. On  05.12.2016,  when  this  matter  was  taken  up,  Shri

Raju  Ramachandran,  Senior  Advocate,  on  behalf  of  the

appellants  submitted  that  the  appellants  are  ready  to  pay

lump sum amount maximum to the extent of  Rs.50 lacs to

respondent  no.  1  by  way  of  golden  hand  shake  for

reinstatement and back wages, to which Shri Neeraj Shekhar,

learned  counsel  for  respondent  no.  1,  responded  by  saying

that he leaves it to the discretion of this Court.  We think it

relevant to mention here that it is not clear from the record

that  respondent  no.  1  did  not  get  engaged  in  some  other

employment after termination of service.

8. In  view  of  the  above,  considering  the  facts  and

circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that

the respondent no. 1 has lost the confidence of management

(appellants),  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  order  of

reinstatement  with  back  wages  can  be  substituted  by

directing  the  appellants  to  pay  Rs.50  lacs  as  lump  sum

amount of compensation to respondent no. 1, which appears

to be just and proper.

Page 6

Page 6 of 7

9. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed with direction to the

appellants to pay compensation of Rs.50 lacs to respondent

no.  1 within a period of  two months from the date of  this

order.  In case the payment is made as directed above, the

order of reinstatement and back wages shall stand set aside

and the impugned order passed by the High Court shall stand

interfered with and modified to the extent as above,  failing

which the appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

……………….....…………J.                                 [J. Chelameswar]

 .……………….……………J. New Delhi;   [Prafulla C. Pant] December 14, 2016.

Page 7

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  12067 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 30610 of 2016)

Correspondent, Anaikar Oriental (Arabic) Higher Secondary School and Anr.  …Appellants

Versus B. Haroon and Anr.        … Respondents

O R D E R

When  the  judgment  is  delivered,  learned  counsel

appearing for the appellants prays for time to make payment in

terms of the judgment delivered today.

Heard learned counsel for the respondent(s).

In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to permit

the appellants to pay the amount mentioned in the judgment in

three equal  monthly  instalments,  the first  of  which shall  be

payable  on  or  before  10th January,  2017.   The  other  two

instalments shall be paid on or before 10th of other succeeding

months.

……………….....…………J.                                 [J. Chelameswar]

 .……………….……………J. New Delhi;   [Prafulla C. Pant] December 14, 2016.