Delhi High Court
Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Anr. vs Dr. Lalita Sharma And Ors. on 20 January, 2006
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th October, 1998. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as follows:
05.10.98 Present: Mr. S.P. Pandey for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Poddar for the respondents. CW No.2717/85
The writ petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:
a) A writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to refrain from interfering with the Petitioner's working on her post of Post Graduate Teacher in the Respondent School.
b) A writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondents to pay to the petitioner her due salary, allowances and other benefits, which the Respondents have illegally withheld from her since March 1983.
c) A writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate, Order or Direction , quashing the chargesheet issued malaciously and frivolously by the Chairman of the Respondent School;
(In the alternative and without prejudice to the aforementioned prayers) a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents Nos 1 and 2 to absorb the Petitioner in a suitable post in any other school, in terms of Rules 46 and 47 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973; In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, has not shown any facts. Mr. Poddar learned counsel for the respondents appeared and represented that the officer who has to give the instruction is on leave therefore, he could not get the instructions and seeks adjournment. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
1) The writ of mandamus shall issue for barring the respondents from interference of the petitioner's working as Post Graduate Teacher in Bhagwan Mahavir Sanskrit Vidya Peeth.
2) Directing respondents 3 and 4 to pay to the petitioner the salary and allowances withheld since March 1983.
3) Directing respondents 3 and 4 to pay the same on or before 31.12.1998.
4) Issuing wit of certiorari quashing the chargesheet issued against the petitioner.
5) Directing respondents 1 and 2 to accommodate the petitioner in any one of the schools in terms of Rules 46 and 47 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.
Directing the parties to bear their own costs.?
2. In our opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained at all.
3. When a Judge writes a judgment, he must set out, at least, briefly the facts of the case and then the law on the point and then he must express his own view and discuss the law and the facts of the case and only then does he deliver a proper judgment.
4. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge shows that no reasoning at all has been given by him. All that he has said is:- ?On the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.?
5. With due respect to the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that such a judgment cannot be sustained in any manner. There is no discussion of the facts, there is no reasoning and there is no law referred to in the said judgment. In our opinion, the said judgment is a mere direction and can hardly be described as a judgment.
6. In the normal circumstance therefore, we would have set aside the judgment and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge to pass a fresh judgment in accordance with law.
7. However, Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1 states that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was implemented and accordingly the writ petitioner had worked and had received salary and she has now retired.
8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that now no useful purpose would now be served by sending the matter back to the learned Single Judge. On the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we dispose of this writ appeal with the aforesaid observations but we make it clear that this judgment will not operate as a precedent for the future.
