Seema Jariwala vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4697 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 6473/2013
%                                                     9th October, 2013

SEEMA JARIWALA                                       ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Puneet Goel, Adv.


                          VERSUS

THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.        ...... Respondents
                   Through:  Ms. Meghna Bharara, Adv. for Ms.
                             Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. for R-1.

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

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No. 14087/2013(Exemption)

      Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

      CM stands disposed of.

WPC 6473/2013 & CM No.14088/2013 (Stay)

1.    By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the departmental

proceedings commenced against her in terms of the chargesheet dated

1.8.2013.

2.    On behalf of the petitioner, following arguments are raised to

challenge the departmental proceedings:-
WPC 6473/2013                                                             Page 1 of 5
 (i)     Departmental proceedings have been initiated without the chargesheet

having been formulated by disciplinary committee and which is so required

under Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

(ii)    The memos which have been issued are without any basis and false.

(iii)   Petitioner is wrongly denied the services of an advocate as a defence

assistant; and

(iv)    Petitioner has not been given the list of witnesses and the documents

which are sought to be relied upon by the Management/school in the enquiry

proceedings.

3.      So far as the first aspect of non compliance of Rule 118 is concerned,

it is directed that since constitution of a disciplinary committee is necessary

for issuing of the chargesheet and appointment of the enquiry officer, the

respondent no.2-school will give copy of the Minutes of Meeting of the

Managing Committee of the school by which the disciplinary committee was

constituted for enquiring into the charges against the petitioner and for

which disciplinary committee has thereafter framed the chargesheet. In

case, the respondent-school has committed a technical lapse, it is observed

that the Management Committee of the school can now rectify the lapse by

rectifying the proceedings by taking necessary steps inasmuch as,

disciplinary proceedings have not reached a very advance stage and
WPC 6473/2013                                                               Page 2 of 5
 examination of witnesses of the management has still to commence. The

necessary Minutes of Meeting of the managing committee and the

proceedings of the disciplinary committee of the respondent no.2-school be

furnished to the petitioner within a period of two weeks of receipt of copy of

the present order.

4.    So far as the aspect that memos issued against the petitioner as stated

in the chargesheet are false, this aspect cannot be considered by this Court.

It is settled law that truth and falsity of the allegations viz merits of the

matter, have to be decided in the departmental proceedings and not by the

Court. This court can only go into the issues which go to the root of the

departmental proceedings including issues of lack of jurisdiction.        This

argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is misconceived and therefore

rejected.

5.    The third aspect which is urged on behalf of the petitioner is the

entitlement of the petitioner to appoint an advocate as a defence assistant. In

terms of the circular dated 25.3.1991, issued by the Director of Education-

respondent no.2, unless the school has other specific rules, the rules

governing government employees apply to departmental proceedings against

employees of the aided and unaided schools. As per Rule 14(8) of the CCS

(CCA) Rules, when applied mutatis mutandis, a defence assistant can only
WPC 6473/2013                                                               Page 3 of 5
 be an employee of the school or an ex-employee of the school. I have

recently held so in the case titled as Rajesh Mathews Vs. Director of

Education & Ors. in W.P.(C) 632/12 decided on 7.10.2013. Accordingly,

the request of the petitioner for appointing of an advocate to appear in the

departmental proceeding is rejected.

6.     The last argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner

should be given the list of witnesses and the documents which the

school/management proposes to rely in the departmental proceedings. I do

not think that this can be an issue and petitioner should therefore be supplied

with the list of witnesses which the management-school proposes to rely

upon    to   lead   evidence    in     the   departmental   proceedings    and

management/school is directed to supply copies of all the documents which

will be filed and relied upon by it in the departmental proceedings to the

petitioner. The needful be done by the school-management within a period

of two weeks of receipt of copy of the present order.

7.     In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed so far as the

challenge to the enquiry proceedings is concerned. However directions as

stated above are issued for giving the petitioner the list of witnesses and the

documents which will be relied upon and filed by the management/school

and also the petitioner will be supplied copies of the minutes of meeting of
WPC 6473/2013                                                               Page 4 of 5
 the managing committee and disciplinary committee with respect to

initiation of the departmental proceedings and framing of charge-sheet

against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the limited

extent as stated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Dasti to

counsel for the petitioner.




OCTOBER 09, 2013                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib