Teacher facing POCSO case: Madras High Court directs posting, noting no disciplinary proceedings had begun

The petitioner, a BT Assistant (Mathematics) at Government High School, Vadarangam, was named in an FIR registered under Section 7 of the POCSO Act and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, following an incident involving students and AI tools.

He obtained anticipatory bail, took medical leave, and later sought permission to resume duty.

The respondents did not permit him to join, although no suspension or disciplinary proceedings had been initiated. After his representations went unanswered, he sought mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to resume duty at his original school or a nearby government school.

The State informed the Court that disciplinary proceedings were being contemplated.

1. Whether the respondents could refuse to permit the petitioner to resume duty when no disciplinary proceedings or suspension order had been initiated.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for consideration of his request and issuance of posting orders.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the petitioner’s request for mandamus.

It applied the principle that, in the circumstances before it, the respondents had no sufficient justification to prevent the petitioner from joining duty when no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a broader statutory rule governing an employee’s service status during a pending criminal case.

Sections 7 of the POCSO Act and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are mentioned as provisions under which the FIR was registered, not as the basis for the Court’s decision.

The Court noted that the petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail and that, as of the hearing, no disciplinary proceedings had commenced against him.

The State’s statement that such proceedings were contemplated did not establish a present basis for keeping him from duty.

In the absence of a sufficient reason for refusing his request, the Court held that the concerned educational authorities should consider his case and issue posting orders.

The order required the necessary orders to be issued within one week; its final sentence refers to the petitioner reporting to the fifth respondent, the Headmaster.

No costs were ordered.