Sanjay Kumar vs School Management Of Jindal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1584 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) No.2727/2017 and C.M. No.11833/2017 (stay)

%                                                     24th March, 2017

SANJAY KUMAR                                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate.
                          versus

SCHOOL MANAGEMENT OF JINDAL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ORS.
                                      ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rizwan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The limited prayer in this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, as argued before this Court is that the

charge-sheet dated 29.6.2011, and the consequent disciplinary

proceedings held against the petitioner, be set aside on the ground of

delay.

2. The writ petition is clearly an abuse of process of law and

an endeavor by the petitioner to scuttle the disciplinary proceedings

against the petitioner on account of various acts of gross

insubordination alleged against the petitioner including towards the

Principal of the school. In fact, there is no delay in the disciplinary

proceedings though the charge-sheet is of the year 2011, inasmuch as,

actually earlier upon the petitioner a punishment of removal from

services was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated

4.11.2011. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an

appeal before the Delhi School Tribunal (DST). The appeal was

allowed by the DST and the challenge by the school to the order of the

DST before this Court in W.P.(C) No.8537/2015 was unsuccessful as

this writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court as per the judgment dated 7.9.2015. Thereafter the LPA was

filed by the school against the judgment of the learned Single Judge

dated 7.9.2015 being LPA No.663/2015, and wherein the Division

Bench vide its judgment dated 29.9.2015 though upheld the order of

the DST and the learned Single Judge, however the Division Bench in

the LPA directed continuation of the enquiry from the stage of

submission of the written statement by the petitioner in the enquiry

proceedings. Therefore, presently the proceedings which are now

continuing are only with respect to the balance enquiry proceedings

pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench dated 29.9.2015.

3. In the facts of the present case therefore it cannot be

therefore said that there is such amount of delay for quashing of the

charge-sheet at this stage itself without enquiry being conducted by the

enquiry officer. In any case, delay will not result in quashing of the

enquiry proceedings unless delay causes prejudice to the petitioner and

which prejudice has to be explained in detail in a writ petition for

quashing of the enquiry proceedings stating that now because of the

delay the petitioner is prejudiced in an irreparable manner, but this

however is not found as per the pleadings in the writ petition.

4. It is therefore clear that this writ petition is misconceived

and only an endeavour to ensure that somehow or other enquiry

proceedings against the petitioner come to a close without actually

there being findings by the enquiry officer.

5. Dismissed.

MARCH 24, 2017                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne