Delhi High Court
Salwan Boys Senior Secondary ... vs Dy. Director Education And Ors on 9 December, 2016
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11652/2016
SALWAN BOYS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinay Sabharwal, Advocate.
versus
DY. DIRECTOR EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Siddharth Shankar Ray, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
ORDER
% 09.12.2016
C.M. Appl. No. 45903/2016 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject all to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11652/2016 and C.M. Appl. No. 45902/2016 (for stay)
1. Petitioner, by this writ petition, impugns the order of the
Director of Education dated 4.11.2016 and which reads as under:-
"OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ZONE-28, DISTRICT CENTRAL
PLOT NO. 5, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI
NO. D.D.E./Z-28/2016/1739 Dated:- 04/11/2016
To,
The Manager/HOS,
Salwan Boys Sr. Sec. School,
Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
W.P.(C) 11652/2016 page 1 of 3
Sub:- Proposal of Dismissal in r/o Sh. C.J. Joyson.
Sir/Madam,
Vide UO no. 8096 DE dated 19.10.2016 Directorate of
Education has turned down the proposal of DAC which is being
conveyed to you for further necessary action at your end:-
1. Fresh Inquiry may be conducted from the stage of
appointing a new inquiry officer in place of Sh. S.K. Saraswat.
2. The suspension period of Sh. C.J. Joyson is not extended.
He is entitled to join his duty in present school.
sd/-
DDE
ZONE-28"
2. The aforesaid cryptic order is clearly a non-speaking order.
The order does not give reasons as to why the detailed enquiry report
which is prepared running into about 44 pages, and which considers
the evidence led by the respective parties, should be set aside and a
new Enquiry Officer appointed and enquiry proceedings to commence
de novo.
3. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N.
Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 has held that once
quasi judicial powers are exercised, then the order which must be
passed by the concerned statutory authority must be a speaking order
giving reasons.
4. The impugned order dated 4.11.2016 falls foul of the ratio of
the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
S.N. Mukherjee (supra).
W.P.(C) 11652/2016 page 2 of 3
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and disposed
of by directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to pass a speaking order
giving reasons as to why the enquiry report dated 25.6.2016 be set
aside, and such reasons must be within the parameters of law as to
why enquiry proceedings have to be set aside or why the appointment
of the Enquiry Officer was bad or why the detailed findings and
conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer after considering the
evidence of the school as also the charged officer need to be set aside.
6. Speaking order be communicated to the petitioner within a
period of four weeks from today. The Director of Education or his
nominee, being the competent authority, will hear the petitioner
before passing any speaking order.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in
terms of the aforesaid observations setting aside the impugned order
dated 4.11.2016.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 09, 2016
AK
W.P.(C) 11652/2016 page 3 of 3
