CHENNAI: Children are the assets of this country and it is the duty of the government to provide the safest environment for them in all their endeavours, the Madras High Court has said. Justice MV Muralidharan directed government officials concerned to conduct surprise checks in all schools and verify whether facilities provided in them are in compliance with rules and regulations. If there is non-compliance, the government should initiate severe action against the violating schools and authorities concerned. School managements and teachers shall at all times ensure the safety of the young and tender children.
“Let’s not forget that the young children are the assets of this country and it is the duty of the government to provide the safest environment for them,” the judge said. The judge was passing orders on a writ petition from P Pinagapani, the then Headmaster holding additional charge as District Educational Officer, challenging a GO dated June 26, 2012 of the School Education department, imposing the punishment of removal from service upon him for his alleged lethargic attitude in granting permission to open/continue to function schools in unsafe conditions.
The main incident behind his removal was the fire tragedy in the primary schools in Kumbakonam in which 94 children were charred to death in 2004. He sought to quash the dismissal order with a direction to the department to grant all service and retirement benefits to him.
Allowing the petition, Justice Muralidharan observed that an analysis of the controversy would reveal that the petitioner has been found guilty, whereas five persons who were working along with him at the relevant point of time, were exonerated. Petitioner alone has been found guilty without any satisfactory reason for exonerating other individuals.
As rightly pointed out by the petitioner the Supreme Court had clearly laid down that though it might be open to the disciplinary authority to deal differently with different delinquents, however, once when the charges were similar and in relation to the same incident, the same would amount to discrimination if only one delinquent was singled out and several others who could have been equally responsible for the same, had been exonerated without any sufficient material basis.
“In this light, it becomes evidently clear that the charges that were levelled against the petitioner and the disciplinary proceedings that were conducted are clearly arbitrary and illegal and the petitioner alone cannot be allowed to face the hammer when the government has cautiously exonerated other similarly situated persons. Even on merits, it has been found clear that the petitioner cannot be proceeded with and thus, this court finds that the impugned orders that have been passed would have no legal sanctity,” the judge said.