Delhi High Court
Prabhu Dayal Public School And ... vs N R Verma And Anr. on 19 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 19, 2018
(i) + W.P.(C) 949/2017 & C.M. 4327/2017
(ii) + W.P.(C) 3808/2017 & C.M. 16719/2017
(iii) + W.P.(C) 3850/2017 & C.M. 16889/2017
PRABHU DAYAL PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANR. ... Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.P. Sundar Rao, Ms.Seema
Meena & Ms. R. Gayathri Manasa, Advocates
Versus
(i) N R VERMA AND ANR.
(ii) ANITA BHARADWAJ & ANR.
(iii) MS DEV BALA THROUGH HER LRS JAGAT BANDHU
AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal & Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, Advocates for respondent No.1
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. In the above captioned three petitions, challenge is to order of 5 th
October, 2016 (Annexure-A) of Delhi School Tribunal (henceforth
referred to as the "Tribunal") vide which penalty of "removal from
service" has been set aside with direction to reinstate respondents-
teachers/ Laboratory Assistant. Counsel representing both the sides
submit that the impugned order in these three petitions adopts the same
reasoning and so, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties,
these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this
common judgment.
2. Impugned order of 5th October, 2016 (Annexure-A) notes that
recommendation of Disciplinary Committee held at 9:00 a.m. on 19th
June, 2010 and its approval by the Managing Committee at 10.30 a.m. on
the same day, reveals non application of mind, as Disciplinary
Committee's recommendation of eleven pages could not have been
placed before the Managing Committee within a time gap of 1½ hours.
The conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal is that the minutes of meeting
are false and manipulated. Not only this, learned Tribunal has found that
the Disciplinary Committee was not constituted in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 118 of Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973.
Such a conclusion was drawn by learned Tribunal, as it was found that
Smt. Vimla Bhatia, Manager of petitioner-School, was the complainant
and also a member of Managing Committee and Mr. Y.P. Gurang was the
Chairman of preliminary Inquiry Committee and was also a member of
Disciplinary Committee and Managing Committee. Learned Tribunal has
also held that the penalty of "removal from service" is disproportionate,
as the respondents herein were only agitating their claim for grant of
benefits in terms of Sixth Pay Commission.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner-School draws the attention of this
Court to Paragraph No.12 of impugned order of 5th October, 2016
(Annexure-A), which is as under:-
"12. The summer vacations started w.e.f.
01.05.2009. On 04.05.2009 at about 10/10.30 AM
Appellant alongwith other teachers entered the office of
the Manager of the School and started shouting slogans
for the salary. They continued their agitation for about
two hours. They did not allow the Manager to get up.
The Manager did not speak a single word as he was
under a threat of assault from the teachers. They had
also blocked the entrance of the office. Appellant
alongwith other teachers also made fun of handicap of
Manager. They had also threatened to disrepute the
school and to continue agitation and strike. Media
persons from „Aajtak‟ were also called by them to
sensationalize the whole issue. It was also aired on
National Television, which was disrepute to the School.
At about 3.30 PM when the aim of the Appellant and
other teachers was fulfilled, they left the school
threatening that a bigger demonstration will be done on
15.05.2009."
4. Counsel for petitioner submits that unruly agitation by
respondents- teachers/ Laboratory Assistant clearly constitutes
misconduct and merely because the Disciplinary Committee's
recommendations were approved by Managing Committee within a short
time, it cannot possibly give rise to an inference that the minutes of
meeting were false and manipulated.
5. Learned counsel for respondents- teachers/ Laboratory Assistant
submits that the agitation for grant of benefits under the Sixth Pay
Commission does not constitute misconduct and so, impugned order
deserves to be maintained.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material
on record, I find that since constitution of Disciplinary Committee was
not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 118 of Delhi School
Education Act & Rules, 1973, therefore, learned Tribunal was well within
its rights to conclude that the disciplinary proceedings stood vitiated.
However, Tribunal's conclusion of Disciplinary Committee's minutes of
meeting and of the Management Committee being false and manipulated
is unwarranted on the premise that there was a gap of 1½ hours only.
Such a conclusion is perverse. The alleged misconduct, as noted in
paragraph No.12 of the impugned order, needs to be seriously viewed.
Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner-School to hold de
novo inquiry into the aforesaid misconduct, as detailed in paragraph
No.12 of impugned order.
7. In view of aforesaid, impugned order is accordingly modified
while permitting petitioner-School to initiate inquiry afresh, as on
technical grounds, the alleged misconduct cannot be ignored as it is to be
tested on merits. Since the incident in question relates to the year 2009,
therefore, it is expected that inquiry proceedings will conclude within a
period of six months from today.
8. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned three petitions and
applications are disposed of.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 19, 2018
r
