The Managing Committee Of Nutan ... vs Director Of Education & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3701 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 10759/2009

%                                                         22nd August , 2013

THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF NUTAN VIDYA MANDIR
SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL                    ......Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR.                ...... Respondents
                 Through:  Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Advocate with
                          Mr. Arjun Sayal, Advocate for
                          respondent No.1.
                          Mr. K.K. Sabharwal, Advocate for
                          respondent No.2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

+ W.P.(C) No.10759/2009 and C.M. No.9764/2009 (stay)

1.           By this writ petition, the petitioner-school impugns the

judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 30.4.2009 whereby the

appeal of the respondent No.2/teacher before the DST was allowed and it

was directed that the respondent No.2 herein will stand reinstated in service.

The school management was also directed to act in terms of Rule 121 of the

W.P.(C) No.10759/2009                                              Page 1 of 4
 Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 for deciding the issue of payment of

salary for the intervening period, allowances and other consequential

benefits to the respondent No.2 herein.

2.          The case of the petitioner-school before the DST was that

respondent No.2 used to inflict corporal punishment and therefore various

memos were given to her. It is stated that the respondent No.2 thereafter had

resigned. However, it was simultaneously also pleaded by the petitioner

before the DST that Articles of Charges were served upon the respondent

No.2, enquiry proceedings were held, the Enquiry Officer gave his report

and thereafter the respondent No.2's services were terminated by giving

three months' notice pay.

3.          The DST in the impugned judgment has held that an

employee/teacher of a school can only be removed in terms of Rule 120 of

the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and which requires following of the

proper procedure of issuance of Articles of Charges, conduct of proper

enquiry following the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer's

report being given to the chargsheeted person for representing before the

Disciplinary Authority which has to award the punishment. DST has found

that there is no proof of Articles of Charges being served upon the

respondent No.2, that the Enquiry Officer has given notice to the respondent

W.P.(C) No.10759/2009                                             Page 2 of 4
 No.2 to appear in the enquiry proceedings, that the enquiry report was

served upon the respondent No.2 and consequently the Disciplinary

Authority thereafter passed an order of removal from services of the

respondent No.2.

4.           During the course of hearing, I put three specific queries to the

counsel for the petitioner as under:

(i)     to show as to how Articles of Charges were served upon the

respondent No.2 by the petitioner-school,

(ii)    what and which was the notice given by the Enquiry Officer to the

respondent No.2 to appear in the enquiry proceedings, and

(iii)   as to how and when the Enquiry Officer's report was given to the

respondent No.2 to enable her to make representation to the Disciplinary

Authority and which Disciplinary Authority has heard the respondent No.2

before passing the order of termination of services.

5.           To none of the queries, any document could be pointed out to

this Court as to how the Articles of Charges were served upon the

respondent No.2, whether at all the Enquiry Officer gave notice to the

respondent No.2 to appear in the enquiry proceedings and as to whether the

Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice on the basis of the

Enquiry Officer's report and attaching the same for the respondent No.2 to

W.P.(C) No.10759/2009                                              Page 3 of 4
 give response as to any proposed punishment. Therefore, Rule 120 of the

Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 is squarely violated.            The enquiry

proceedings and the order of the termination of services of the respondent

No.2 are therefore wholly illegal and only an eyewash.

6.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




AUGUST 22, 2013                               VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne