Delhi High Court
Dr. Ashwani Kumar Kala vs School Management Of Hira Lal Jain ... on 26 February, 2018
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: February 26, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1785/2018 & CM No. 7389/2018
DR. ASHWANI KUMAR KALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Joginder Sukhija, Advocate
with petitioner in person
Versus
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT OF HIRA LAL JAIN SENIOR
SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Counsel (appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Impugned order of 13th February, 2018 (Annexure P-1) rejects
petitioner's appeal against order of 28th April, 2017 (Annexure P-2) vide
which petitioner, a PGT (Commerce) has been removed from service.
Vide Memorandum of 6th April, 2017 petitioner was called upon to
explain his acts and misconduct and non-performance of assigned duties
as a post graduate teacher and petitioner vide his undated reply (Annexure
P-3) had called upon the respondent - school to state the reason and
intention of threatening, misbehaving and harassing petitioner by not
holding the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting for the post of
Vice Principal. Petitioner had also sought copy of the Managing
Committee Resolution on the basis of which Memorandum of 6th April,
2017 was issued to petitioner. Vide the said reply, petitioner had also
called upon the respondent - school to provide complete names of MC
members who had voted in favour of the resolution on the basis of which
said Memorandum has been issued to the petitioner. The complete
names and addresses of the nominees of the respondent - Directorate of
Education was also sought by petitioner in his reply. The findings of the
Delhi School Tribunal in the impugned order are as under:-
"Appellant could not prove his worth as a teacher through his
work and conduct. He used to defy the authority of principal and
acted in a manner detrimental to the smooth running of school. In
view of his arrogant and defiant attitude he was warned to desist
from such conduct. The Appellant was not regular in taking
classes he had not improve his behaviour and conduct inspite of
several opportunities given to him. Such type of his behaviour was
certainly detrimental to the smooth running of the school. From
the above quoted reply of the Appellant, it is clear that he has not
replied any of the issue raised in the show cause notice. The
conduct of the Appellant and his continuous defiance of the
authorities is evident from the ACRs since the year 2001-02 till
2015-16. Appellant was given many opportunities to improve his
conduct and behaviour but he has not changed his attitude. His
work and conduct was not satisfactory. The quality, competency
and character of the teacher are most significant for the efficiency
of the education system. Any educational institute for its growth
and development depends upon the quality of teachers. In these
circumstances, Respondent School removed the Appellant from the
service vide order dated 28th April, 2017. The order is well
reasoned and self-explanatory. When the Appellant has not
improved his conduct and behaviour and continue to defy the
principal as well as school authorities, in these circumstances, no
option left with the Respondent School but to remove the Appellant
in the interest of students. The interest of students is the
paramount consideration for running the educational institute. In
view of above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal hence the
same is dismissed."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner assails impugned order on the
ground that the removal order (Annexure P-2) as well as impugned order
(Annexure P-1) are in violation of Rule 118 and Rule 120 of the Delhi
School Education Act & Rules, 1973. It is submitted by petitioner's
counsel that no valid reason is forthcoming to dispense with the enquiry
which was mandatory and that removal order (Annexure P-2) has been
passed by the Managing Committee whereas as per Rule 118 of the Delhi
School Education Rule, 1973, it was required to be passed by the
disciplinary committee whose composition has to be as per Rule 118 of
the said rules. So, it is submitted that the impugned order as well as
removal order deserve to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order and
draws attention of this Court to paragraph no. 27 of the impugned order to
point out that since there was no proper reply to the show cause notice,
therefore holding of an enquiry was an empty formality and composition
of Managing committee of the respondent - school and disciplinary
committee is no different and so, petitioner suffers no prejudice by not
specifically constituting the disciplinary committee as the members of the
disciplinary committee were already there in the Managing Committee of
the respondent - school. Thus, it is submitted that impugned order
deserves to be upheld and this petition ought to be dismissed.
4. Upon hearing and perusal of impugned order and the material on
record, I find that Delhi School Tribunal has not considered vital aspect
of dispensing with the enquiry which as per Rule 120 of Delhi School
Education Rules, 1973 is mandatory. Merely because there is no proper
reply to the show cause notice, it would not justify dispensing with the
enquiry as it has to be determined as to whether under the Delhi School
Education Rules, enquiry can be dispensed with or not. This crucial
aspect has not been dealt with by the learned Tribunal. What would be
the effect of not constituting disciplinary committee and as to whether the
composition of the disciplinary committee and the Managing Committee
being overlapping has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. This
aspect goes to the root of the matter.
5. Since the afore-referred vital aspects have not been considered by
the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, therefore the impugned order
is set aside and the matter is remanded back to decide the appeal afresh
while dealing with the aforesaid vital aspects. Parties to appear before
the learned Tribunal on 6th March, 2018. It is expected that the learned
Tribunal shall expeditiously decide petitioner's appeal afresh.
6. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2018
ns
