Delhi High Court
Dinesh Singh Rawat vs Chairman & Ors on 23 April, 2018
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 23.04.2018
+ LPA 219/2018, CM APPL. 15839/2018, CM APPL. 15840/2018 &
CM APPL. 15841/2018
DINESH SINGH RAWAT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate.
versus
CHAIRMAN & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel (Service) for respondent No.
4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent Act impugns the judgment and order dated 23.03.2018
rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 8294/2017, titled as 'Dinesh Singh Rawat vs. Chairman,
Ryan International School, whereby the same was disposed off with
a direction to the respondent/School to conclude the enquiry in
pursuance of the charge sheet dated 04.07.2017 issued to the
appellant, within a period of three months from the date already fixed.
2. Before we proceed to adjudicate the present appeal, it would be
necessary to observe that the present proceedings are the second
LPA 219/2018 Page 1
round of litigation in relation to the disciplinary proceedings
conducted by the respondent/School qua the appellant. In the first
round, the appellant had assailed his dismissal from service by the
Management of the respondent/School by preferring an appeal before
the Delhi School Tribunal. The said Tribunal by its order dated
17.10.2016 in Appeal No. 18/2013 directed reinstatement of the
appellant inter alia with all consequential benefits and back wages,
essentially on the ground that the disciplinary authority had not been
constituted in consonance with the provisions of Rule 118 of the
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
said Rules').
3. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated
16.05.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 1298/2017, titled as "The Chairman,
Ryan International School vs. Dinesh Singh Rawat & Ors" had set
aside the said order dated 17.10.2016 and remanded the matter back
to the Disciplinary Committee to take a decision, whether to proceed
against the appellant in a disciplinary enquiry and, if not, then the
matter shall be treated as closed. It was further directed that if the
disciplinary enquiry is to be conducted against the appellant, then the
respondent/School shall conduct proceedings in terms of Rule 120 of
the said Rules and pass orders with regard to the period post dismissal
of the appellant, in accordance with law.
4. It is an admitted position that the said judgment and order dated
16.05.2017 has attained finality. It is further admitted that an enquiry
is currently underway against the appellant in pursuance of the charge
LPA 219/2018 Page 2
sheet dated 04.07.2017. The appellant has, in this round of litigation
assailed the said charge sheet dated 04.07.2017. The grievance of the
appellant in this behalf is that in response to his representation against
the charge sheet dated 04.07.2017, the respondent/School has
declined to grant him reinstatement with full back wages and all
attendant benefits from the period post the date of dismissal. The
stand of the respondent/School in this behalf is that pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court vide the order dated 16.05.2017 in the
earlier round of litigation, the disciplinary committee in its meeting
held on 03.07.2017, decided to hold a further enquiry into the
allegations of misconduct against the appellant and consequently, the
latter having been placed under suspension from the date of the order
of the dismissal i.e. 20.02.2013, would continue under suspension
until further orders.
5. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order dated
23.02.2018, having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties, held as follows:-
"2. The challenge in this petition is to an order of 4th July, 2017
passed by respondent-School whereby petitioner was suspended
with retrospective effect while denying back wages for the post
dismissal period. In this petition, a direction is sought to
respondent-school to pay full salary from the date of earlier
dismissal i.e. 20th February, 2013. Alongwith the writ petition,
charge sheet of 4th July, 2017 {Annexure P-3) has been
appended. In the counter filed, there is no reference to any order
of 4th July, 2017 regarding petitioner's suspension with
retrospective effect and about denial of back wages etc. Even
petitioner has not placed on record any such order. So far as the
issuance of charge sheet of 4th July, 2017 (Annexure P-3) is
concerned, it is in consonance with the order (Annexure P-2) of
LPA 219/2018 Page 3
this Court. It is matter of record that petitioner was suspended
way back in the year 2012 when the inquiry was initiated against
him and the suspension allowance etc. till the date of his
dismissal has been paid to him. The question of post dismissal
period was required to be considered by respondent-school, in
view of the directions issued by this Court in its order (Annexure
P-2). It is evident from the reply field by respondent-school that
the said aspect has not been dealt with by the respondent-school.
The whole emphasis of respondent-school in the counter filed is
that in view of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 115 of Delhi School Education
Rules, 1973, the charge sheet now issued is part of further
inquiry and so petitioner is deemed to be suspended from the
initial date. On the contrary, petitioner's counsel asserts that the
instant case is not covered by sub-Rule 4 of Rule 115 of the
Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 as the issuance of charge
sheet of 4'^ July, 2017 amounts of initiation of fresh inquiry and
so, petitioner ought to be first reinstated and paid the back
wages and thereafter the fresh inquiry can be initiated.
3. Upon hearing and on perusal of charge sheet of 4th July, 2017
and the material on record, I find that petitioner's representation
against the charge sheet of 4th July, 2017 {Annexure P-3) has
been responded to by the respondent-school vide Reply
{Annexure P-5) on 28th July, 2017 and its perusal reveals that
the directions of this Court m the order {Annexure P-2)
regarding the period post dismissal has not been dealt with the
proper prospective. During the course of hearing, petitioner's
counsel relied upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Ajay Singh Vs. Delhi Police Public School & Ors. 2005
SCC OnLine Del 6 and another decision of a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Ramesh Chander Dubey Vs. Director of
Education & Anr. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 554 to submit that sub-
Rule 4 of Rule 115 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973
would not apply as termination of service was without following
the mandate of Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules,
1973.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent-school
relied upon Supreme Court's decision in South Bengal State
Transport Corporation Vs. Sapan Kumar Mitra & Ors. (2006) 2
SCC 584 to submit that when penalty is set aside on technical
LPA 219/2018 Page 4
ground, then reinstatement with back wages amounts to
rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and results in stretching
the concept of justice to an illogical limit.
5. After having gone through the decisions cited, I find that in
Ramesh Chander Dubey (supra) and Ajay Singh (supra), no
inquiry was held and so it was rightly ruled that sub-Rule 4 of
Rule 115 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 would not
apply. In the instant case, inquiry was held and the penalty
imposed upon petitioner was set aside because the Disciplinary
Committee was not properly constituted and this Court vide
order {Annexure P-2) had permitted respondent-school to
proceed with the inquiry. In the considered opinion of this Court,
the instant case would be covered under sub-Rule 4 of Rule 115
of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. However,
respondent-school is required to pass a speaking order within
six weeks regarding the post dismissal period so far as payment
of suspension allowance etc. is concerned.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is considered
appropriate to direct the respondent-school to conclude the
inquiry in pursuance to the charge sheet of 4th July, 2017
{Annexure P-3) within a period of three months from the date
already fixed. It is made clear that in case petitioner causes
delay in holding of the inquiry, then the aforesaid time limit will
not bind the respondent-school."
(emphasis supplied)
6. The solitary submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant is
to the effect that the enquiry being conducted by the Disciplinary
Committee, in terms of the direction of this Court, as contained in the
judgment and order dated 16.05.2017, was a 'fresh enquiry' and not a
'further enquiry', so as to attract the stipulations contained in Rule
115 (4) of the said Rules.
7. In this behalf, it would be relevant to extract the Rule 115 (4) of
the said Rules.
LPA 219/2018 Page 5
" 115. Suspension
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement from service imposed upon an employee is set
aside or rendered void, in consequence of or by, a
decision of a court of law or of the Tribunal; and the
disciplinary authority on a consideration of the
circumstances of the case decides to hold further inquiry
against such employee on the same allegations on which
the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement was originally imposed, such employee shall
be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the
managing committee from the date of original order of
dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall
continue to remain under suspension until further orders:
Provided that no such further enquiry shall be ordered
unless it is intended to meet a situation where the court
has passed an order purely on technical grounds without
going into the merits of the case."
8. It would be pertinent at this stage to observe that the gravamen
of the charge against the appellant is that he handed over the question
papers of Mathematics and Social Studies illegally and unauthorisedly
to the father of a Class X student of the respondent/School so as to
enable the latter to secure good grades.
9. In this behalf, the Supreme Court has clearly and unequivocally
held in South Bengal State Transport vs. Sapan Kumar Mitra,
reported as (2006) 2 SCC 584, that when penalty is set aside on
technical grounds, reinstatement with back wages would amount to
LPA 219/2018 Page 6
rewarding the dishonest and the guilty in stretching the injustice to its
illegal logic.
10. It is in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances that, we are in
agreement with the finding and directions contained in the impugned order
dated 23.05.2018, to the effect that the instant case would be covered under
Sub-Rule 4 of the Rule 115 of the said Rules; and that consequently the
appellant is deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of
the original order of dismissal i.e. 20.02.2013 and will continue to remain
under suspension until further orders.
11. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly
dismissed.
12. However, the respondents are directed to comply with the directions
contained in the impugned order within the specified time frames, without
demur.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 23, 2018/ss
LPA 219/2018 Page 7
