Dilip Kumar Sarkar vs The Directorate Of Edn. And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 825 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. Application be numbered. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1 is taken on record.

WP(C) No.1048/2003

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner, who is a TGT (Drawing) in the Respondent No.2 School, had been charge-sheeted on various counts. Subsequent to the holding of an Inquiry, the Petitioner had acknowledged some misconduct on his part and had prayed to the Managing Committee of the School that he should be dealt with leniently. The Managing Committee, however, imposed a major punishment on the Petitioner, that is, his removal from service. This required the approval of the Directorate of Education. The approval, however, was declined in terms of the Directorate's letter dated 6.8.1999.

3. Thereafter, avowedly without granting the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard, the School had considered the matter afresh and had decided at its Meeting held on 16.8.2001 to impose the minor penalty of stoppage of the Petitioner's annual increment for the next two years effective from the next due date, that is, 1.1.2002 and 1.1.2003, under Rule 117 of the Delhi School Education Rules. The imposition of this punishment has received the approval of the Directorate of Education in terms of its letter dated 23.8.2001.

4. The only remaining question is whether this Court should exercise the extraordinary powers vested in it by Article 226 of the Constitution. The current jural trend is that even where there has been an infraction of a principle of natural justice, the Court should consider the extent of prejudice caused to the Petitioner. In the case in hand, at the stage prior to the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal, the Petitioner had accepted his commission of the acts of misconduct mentioned in the Charge-sheet and had, in fact, prayed for leniency. It is true that the proper course would have been to afford the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard so that the audi alteram partem principle is adhered to in letter and spirit. However, in view of the act that a minor penalty has been imposed, which does not shock the conscience of the Court, which is predicated on the Petitioner's own submission to the Managing Committee of the School and this minor punishment has received the approval of the Directorate of Education, I do not consider it appropriate to exercise the extraordinary powers contained under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Petition stands disposed of. However, in view of the non-adherence with the principles of natural justice, the Petitioner should be paid costs by the Respondent School which are adjudicated at Rs.5,000/-.