Delhi High Court
Shri Sunil Kumar Chaudhary vs The Director Of Education And Ors. on 9 March, 2018
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 9th March, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2196/2018 & CM Nos.9090-91/2018
SHRI SUNIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Puneet Goel, Advocate
versus
THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Asija, Advocate for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of Memorandum and Article of Charge of 17th November,
2017 (Annexure P-1) is sought by petitioner on the ground that initiation of
disciplinary proceedings is by Manager of the respondent-School who
claims to have been nominated by the Disciplinary Committee as
Disciplinary Authority to conduct inquiry against petitioner. Learned
counsel for petitioner relies upon decision of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.(C) No.6473/2013 Seema Jariwala Vs. The Govt. Of NCT of
Delhi & Ors. decided on 9th October, 2013 to submit that as per Rule 118 of
the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings has to be by Disciplinary Committee which mandatorily has to
comprise of the Chairman of the Managing Committee of the School, the
Manager of the School, a Nominee of the Director of Education, Head of
School and a Teacher who is Member of the Managing Committee of the
School and in the instant case inquiry has been illegally conducted by
Manager of the respondent-school.
2. Attention of this Court is drawn by petitioner's counsel to the three
applications (Annexure P-3 Colly) filed by petitioner on 24th January, 2018
seeking supply of minutes of the Meeting of Disciplinary Committee and
other documents and by way of second application petitioner had sought
appointment of a Defence Assistant and by third application, petitioner had
sought dropping of the departmental proceedings against him and these
applications have been rejected by the Manager of the respondent-school
vide impugned order of 17th February, 2018 (Annexure P-4). The crux of
impugned order is that since the Manager of respondent-school has been
authorized by the Disciplinary Committee, therefore, he is competent to
continue with the inquiry proceedings. Petitioner's application for dropping
of inquiry proceedings has been thus rejected. Petitioner's counsel submits
that in view of the decision in Seema Jariwala (supra), the respondent-
school is under legal obligation to supply minutes of the meeting of the
Disciplinary Committee and the inquiry has to be conducted by the
Disciplinary Committee and not by its nominee and so the disciplinary
proceedings ought to be dropped against petitioner.
3. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order of 17 th February,
2018 (Annexure P-4), material on record and the decision cited, I find that
the inquiry initiated against petitioner cannot be halted midway but since the
inquiry is not at an advance stage, therefore, the infirmity pointed out by
petitioner's counsel regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the
Manager of the respondent-school as Disciplinary Authority can be
remedied by the Disciplinary Committee. Rejection of petitioner's
application of 24th January, 2018 by the Manager of the respondent-school
in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority is unsustainable as the said
application has to be considered by the Disciplinary Committee in terms of
Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973. In Seema Jariwala
(supra), the Disciplinary Committee has been given an opportunity to rectify
the lapse of not supplying minutes of the meeting of the Managing
Committee of the respondent-school. In the instant case also, it is deemed
appropriate to permit the Disciplinary Committee to decide petitioner's
application of 24th January, 2018 in light of Rule 118 of Delhi School
Education Rules, 1973 before the matter is proceeded further by the so-
called Disciplinary Authority.
4. Despite service of advance notice upon respondent-school, none has
appeared on its behalf. In such a situation, it is directed that the Managing
Committee of the respondent-school shall supply copy of the minutes of the
meeting vide which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and to clarify
as to whether in said meeting of the Disciplinary Committee, Manager of the
respondent-school was nominated as Disciplinary Authority or not. It is also
required to be clarified by the Disciplinary Committee as to whether
Memorandum of 17th November, 2017 and the Articles of Charges were
issued by it or not and regarding appointment of Manager of the respondent-
school as Inquiry Officer. Let the Disciplinary Committee of the
respondent-school pass a speaking order within six weeks on petitioner's
application of 24th January, 2018 seeking dropping of departmental
proceedings against him and the fate of the application be promptly
conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter and till then the inquiry
proceedings be not proceeded with.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 09, 2018
mamta
