Delhi High Court
Dinesh Singh Rawat vs Chairman, Ryan International ... on 23 March, 2018
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: March 23, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8294/2017 & CM 42891/2017
DINESH SINGH RAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate
versus
CHAIRMAN, RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Romy Chako and Mr.Chandan
Kumar, Advocates for R-1, R-2 and R-3
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik and Ms. Manika
Tripathy Pandey, Advocates for R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the first round of litigation, consequent upon a departmental
inquiry, penalty of dismissal was inflicted upon petitioner which he had
challenged by way of an appeal before Delhi School Tribunal. Vide
order of 17th October, 2016, the Delhi School Tribunal had set aside the
penalty imposed upon petitioner and directed his reinstatement within
four weeks. The said order was challenged by respondent herein by way
of a writ petition which stood allowed vide order of 16th May, 2017
(Annexure P-2). The order (Annexure P-1) of Delhi School Tribunal was
set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Disciplinary
Committee to take a decision whether it will proceed against petitioner
herein in departmental inquiry and if not, then the matter shall be treated
as closed. This Court, vide order of 16th May, 2017 (Annexure P-2) had
permitted the respondent to conduct the proceedings in terms of Rule 120
of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and pass orders with regard to
the post dismissal period.
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 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 4th 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 4 th 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 in 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 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.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for respondent-School
to ensure its compliance within the above stipulated time.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MARCH 23, 2018
mamta
