Delhi High Court
Sandhya Bindal vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 12 October, 2018
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 12th October, 2018
+ LPA.578/2017
SANDHYA BINDAL ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Randhir Jain and Mr. Bhoop
Singh, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ramesh Singh, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Nidhi Raman, Advocates for
respondents no.1 to 3 along with Ms.
Sangeeta Deswal, DEO, Zone 16.
Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate for
respondent no.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant herein had filed a writ petition, seeking the following
prayers:
"i) a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.05.2017
issued by respondent no.3;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to not
to take any action in pursuance of impugned order dated
20.07.2017;
iii) pass any such other orders as it may deem fit to this
Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this
Court by an order dated 26.07.2017, which has led to the filing of the
present appeal.
3. Some necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal
of the present appeal are that the appellant was appointed as a
PGT(Chemistry) in the respondent no.4 School in the year 2000.
After 14 years of rendering service, the appellant was appointed as an
Officiating Principal. The appellant claims to be a meritorious officer
having been awarded various prestigious awards. She was promoted
as Principal of the School on 22.09.2016. The appellant was
aggrieved by an order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Directorate of
Education directing the management of respondent no.4 School to take
immediate action against her under Rules 115 and 117 of the Delhi
School Education Act and Rules, 1973 for having committed breach
of the code of conduct. Challenge in the writ petition was to this
communication dated 20.07.2017 issued by the Directorate of
Education.
4. We may also note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the
appellant is stated to have been suspended and this order of suspension
was also placed on record before the learned Single Judge. It is
informed by the counsel for the respondent that initially Shri Amar
Nath, ADJ(Retd.) was appointed as an Inquiry Officer, however, the
officer resigned as he had to undergo a kidney transplant. We are
informed by the learned counsels for the parties that another Inquiry
Officer, Shri S.C. Rajan, former ADJ, has been appointed. Notice was
served upon the appellant on 01.03.2018 by the Inquiry Officer and
the Inquiry Officer is proceeding with the matter.
5. Since the Inquiry Officer has been appointed and the inquiry is
underway, the appellant does not the press the present appeal.
Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that a
direction be issued to the Inquiry Officer to conclude the inquiry
expeditiously. Counsel for the respondent has no objection to the
same, however, he submits that the appellant be directed to co-operate
with the completion of the inquiry.
6. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
7. We request the Inquiry Officer to complete the inquiry within four
months. It would be open to the appellant, as prayed, to raise all
grounds as available to him in accordance with law before the Inquiry
Officer, including the grounds raised in the present appeal.
CMs.APPL 31867/2017 & 31868/2017
8. The applications stand disposed of in view of the orders passed in the
appeal.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 12, 2018
pst
