Delhi High Court
Bishan Gupta vs Usha Kiran Verma And Ors on 20 July, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.514 of 2012, LPA No.516 of 2012, LPA No.517 of
2012, LPA No.518 of 2012, LPA No.519 of 2012, LPA
No.520 of 2012, LPA No.521 of 2012 & LPA No.515 of
2012
% Decision Delivered on: 20th July, 2012
1) LPA No.514/2012 & CM No.12146/2012 (stay)
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
USHA KIRAN VERMA AND ORS. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
2) LPA No.516/2012& CM No.12150/2012 (stay)
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
SONICA JAGI AND ORS. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
3) LPA No.517/2012 & CM No.12152/2012 (stay)
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
URMIL SAXENA AND ORS. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
4) LPA No.518/2012 & CM No.12154/2012 (stay)
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
SUSHMA VERMA AND ORS. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
5) LPA No.519/2012 & CM No.12167/2012 (stay)
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
ABHA GUPTA AND ORS. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
6) LPA No.520/2012 & CM No.12169/2012 (stay)
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
MEENAKSHI TEWARI AND ORS. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
7) LPA No.521/2012 & CM No.12171/2012 (stay)
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
SONIA SHARMA . . .Respondent
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
8) LPA No.515/2012 & CM No.12148/2012 (stay)
BISHAN GUPTA . . . Appellant
through : Mr. Nilansh Gaur with Mr.
Shanker Raju, Advocates.
VERSUS
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
MEENA SHARMA AND ORS. . . .Respondents
through: Mr. Rajiv Aneja, Advocate for
Respondent No.1
Ms. Shobha Takiar, Advocate
for Respondent No.2
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice)
CM Nos.12147/2012, 12151/2012, 12153/2012, 12155/2012,
12168/2012, 12170/2012, 12172/2012, 12149/2012
Allowed, subject just exceptions.
CMs stand disposed of.
1. All these eight appeals arise out of common judgment rendered
by the learned Single Judge on 06.7.2012 whereby eight writ
petitions filed by the appellant herein have been dismissed. All
the eight private respondents in these appeals were the
teachers in Shakti Mndir Prem Wati Public School (hereinafter
referred to as 'school'). Separate charge-sheets were served
upon them alleging misconduct on the basis of which orders in
respect of each of these teachers were passed on different
dates imposing major penalty of dismissal from service.
2. The teachers filed appeals challenging the validity of imposition
of penalty, before the Delhi School Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for
brevity). These appeals were taken up together and were
decided by the Tribunal vide common judgment dated
11.5.2012. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeals and set
aside the penalty holding the same to be illegal and bad in law.
The Tribunal accordingly directed reinstatement of all the
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
teachers with 50% backwages and consequential benefits with
full salary with effect from 11.5.2005 and also interest @ 12%
per annum on arrears of backwages. The Tribunal directed
that the orders be complied with, within a period of one month.
The appellant did not accept the said judgment of the Tribunal.
Instead of complying with thereof, the appellant filed writ
petitions in this Court. It is these writ petitions which are
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide common judgment
dated 06.7.2012.
3. Before us, submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
was very limited, viz., even if when the Tribunal found that the
inquiry was not conducted properly and due procedure was not
followed, instead of directing reinstatement, the Tribunal
should have given an opportunity to the school to hold fresh
inquiry. His submission was that even the learned Single
Judge did not accept this plea which is contrary to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court. He specifically cited the
judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-
Inspector [(2008) 12 SCC 30] wherein the Supreme Court
followed the view taking note of earlier judgments. In that
case, the Supreme Court held that when the infirmities were
found in the disciplinary proceedings, the Court should have
directed fresh proceeding from the stage of alleged illegality.
4. This argument may appear to be attractive in the first blush.
However, when we go little deeper into the matter, we find that
the disciplinary action taken against the teachers was a result
of mala fide and was clearly vindictive. Therefore, the plea of
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
holding fresh inquiry would be totally unjustified. To
demonstrate this, we take note of the some relevant facts.
5. As pointed out above, private respondents were working as
teachers with the school. They were working as such on
different posts such as TGT, Assistant Teacher, Music Teacher,
Physical Education Teacher, etc. They had rendered service of
more than a decade. Their grievance was that they were not
given full salary for the post on which they had been working.
Lesser salaries were paid to them in cash and signatures were
taken from them on full salary register. For the month of May,
2007 to July, 2007 when none of the teachers received their
salaries and legitimate dues for the last three months, they
approached the school authorities and demanded full salaries
and that too by way of cheques. On raising such a demand, all
those teachers who asked for salaries were told to leave the
school premises and were locked out of the school from
17.7.2007 to 25.7.2007. All the teachers used to go to school
every day during this period and used to write the
representations to Director of Education. Though the said
period was a lock out resorted to by the school authorities, but
later on it was alleged as strike by school authorities. The said
lock out continued till 25.7.2007. However, the said lock out
ended with the intervention of parents of the children but
teachers were not paid salaries.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the same, these teachers approached this
Court by way of Writ Petition (C) Nos.5725/2007, 7104/2007
and 1174/2008 titled as Abha Gupta Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors,
Meena Sharma Vs. Lt. Governor and Ors. and Sonica Jaggi Vs.
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
Lt. Governor and Ors. wherein they sought their remedy by
invoking Section 10 and Section 20 of the Delhi School
Education Act. Apprehending their dismissals, the teachers
also sought injunction on the same. On directions of this
Court, the salaries of the teachers were released yet
management withheld the same for the period from 17.7.2007
to 25.7.2007. That writ petition is still pending.
7. According to the teachers, the outburst of filing the petition
was that the school authorities started creating adverse
working conditions for the teachers and out of such utter
harassment at the hands of school authorities, the petitioners
of the said two petitions moved two applications under Rule
192 of the Delhi School Education Rules explaining their
grievances which the teachers were facing after filing of the
petitions. The said applications are pending disposal with the
main writ. In the said application, the teachers raised various
allegations against the harassments being done by school
authorities, particularly, by Manager and Principal, such as
giving of false memo's, humiliating teachers in front of
students by Principal, showing illegally the children of another
unrecognized school as the children of this school and asking
teachers to prepare their results, talking false complaint from
small children against teachers, asking teachers to give leave
application on medical ground in advance, etc. even prior to
falling sick. All the teachers further filed application seeking
directions from the Court against the school authorities for
payment of their Dearness Allowance and increments.
Thereafter, the school authorities started removing the
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
teachers one by one from services and as on 02.5.2009, all the
teachers who approached this Court seeking their full salaries
were terminated.
8. Strangely, only these teachers who had approached the Court
were targeted and on one pretext or the other, charge-sheets
were served. In two cases, i.e., of Ms. Abha Gupta and Mrs.
Meena Sharma, no charge-sheet was provided and yet the
nominee of the DOE allowed the termination of the two
teachers without a charge-sheet. Mrs. Meena Sharma was
terminated during the period of her extended maternity leave
in an ex parte proceedings. In the case of remaining five
teachers, i.e., Sonica Jaggi, Sonia Sharma, Urmil Saxena, Usha
Kiran and Sushma Verma, the Manager issued the charge-
sheets and not the Disciplinary Committee and sought replies
and without considering the said replies. In the same charge
sheet itself asked them to appear before the alleged
Disciplinary Committee showing pre-determined approach and
biased mind of the school authorities as Rule 120 specifically
says that the response is first to be considered by the
Disciplinary Committee and if found satisfactory, the
Disciplinary Committee can absolve the individual from
charges.
9. The abovementioned five teachers were dismissed from the
services on the same day at the same time and in one go. In
case of Meenakshi Tewari, the allege charges were of the
vintage 2005-06, yet management did not choose to take any
action against her till December, 2008. Qua other charges in
all the cases, the charge of alleged absence from duty from
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
17.7.2007 to 25.7.2007 was common for which the school
authorities had already deducted the pay as well as stopped
the increment and yet again included the same along with
other charges and treating the same as charge for major
penalty.
10. So much so, even the charges in respect of five teachers were
verbatim the same. Apart from the charges of absence from
duty, the two charges were as to why teachers wrote letter to
Commissioner of Police and why the teachers demanded the
election of teacher representatives on management committee.
11. We may mention that the appellant has even admitted the
violation of Rule 20 in all these appeals. The facts disclosed
above make out the case of mala fide and biased attitude as
well. It would also be pertinent to mention that the school has
not come forward to challenge the order of the Tribunal.
Instead, the Manager in his personal capacity filed the writ
petitions and then the present appeals. This also reflects on
the maintainability of the appeals itself. For all these reasons,
we are not inclined to interfere with the orders.
12. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW)
JUDGE
JULY 07, 2012
pmc
LPA Nos.514/2012, 516/2012, 517/2012, 518/2012, 519/2012, 520/2012, 521/2012,
