'Holding Peaceful Demonstrations For Conveying Legitimate Grievances Is A Fundamental Right': Madras HC Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Teachers

The Madras High Court observed that holding peaceful demonstrations for conveying legitimate grievances is a fundamental right.

The Bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri upheld the right of the Teachers Federation to protest peacefully while quashing proceedings instituted against them for a statewide agitation.

The court observed: "the right of the petitioners as the members of the Teachers Federation is an unrestricted right to protest peacefully without arms as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of our Constitution. To be more specific Article 19(1)(b) confers right to the petitioners to assemble and protest peacefully without arms and such a right is the significant feature of a democratic country likewise ours. Constraining the space for legitimate dissent arbitrarily by suspending the petitioners and issuing them with charge memos under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, scuttling down the democratic value system guaranteed by our Constitution has to be undermined with iron hands. The right to protest is an inherent part of speech and inherent facet of right to live guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution".

Counsel T Pon Ramkumar appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate N Ramesh Arumugan appeared for the respondents.

The petitioners, who were Secondary Grade Teachers in various Panchayat Primary Union and Middle Schools, were members of the Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers Federation. The Federation worked for teachers' welfare and addressed their grievances.

The issue arose when, despite disciplinary actions against certain teachers, their names were included in the seniority list. This led to promotions and subsequent suspensions. The Teachers Federation protested peacefully, resulting in their suspension. After statewide agitation, the suspensions were revoked, but charge memos were later issued against the petitioners for their involvement in the agitation. The petitioners challenged these actions in the writ petitions.

The Court observed that as per the applicable guidelines, in case of any employee as against whom a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 has been issued or awarded with punishment then the concerned employee/Teacher's name would not be considered for promotion even if the issuance of charge memo and award of punishment has been proceeded after the preparation of seniority list and seniority panel.

With that background, the Court observed that, "A critical perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would clearly reveal that the second respondent has issued the impugned charge memos on the petitioners without scrupulously following the guidelines extracted supra. Obviously the petitioners have neither indulged in any penal offence nor in falsification of Government records nor had been irregular or negligent in the discharge of official duties nor misused their official position for personal gain nor disclosed the secret or confidential information within the scope of Official Secrets Act nor misappropriated the Government funds."

The Court also rejected the contention that the peaceful agitation resulted in law and order problem, in the absence of any police intervention or criminal complaint.

In light of the same, it was held that the issuance of the charge memos emanated from a lapse of application of mind by the respondents and must be quashed. In that vein, it was said that, "apart having suspended the petitioners from the date of agitation on 11.04.2022 and reinstated the petitioners back to service on the intervention of said Teachers Federation on 06.06.2022, the second respondent ought not to have visited the petitioners with the impugned charge memos dated 06.06.2022 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The reason is simple that the petitioners who have ventilated their grievances by organizing an agitation lawfully as against the respondents should not be punished by the issuance of impugned charge memos and allegations set forth by the impugned charge memos has emanated from lapse of application of mind of the respondents and not covered by the various guidelines framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu", and the petitions were allowed.

Cause Title: J.Jayaraj & Ors. vs The Chief Educational Officer & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment