Ratinder Pal Singh vs Directorate Of Education And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 641 Del

                                       Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001388
                     $~117
                     *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                     %                                      Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2023
                     +        W.P.(C) 653/2023
                              RATINDER PAL SINGH                  ..... Petitioner
                                           Through: Mr.      Hari       Shankar    and
                                           Mr. Somnath Harihar, Advocates.

                                                     versus

                              DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION
                              AND ORS                               ..... Respondents
                                           Through: Ms.         Latika       Choudhary,
                                           Advocate for R-1.
                                           Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Ms. Ayushi Bansal,
                                           Mr. Sanyam Suri and Ms. Arshya Singh,
                                           Advocates for R-2 to 5.

                              CORAM:
                              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

                                                       JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M. APPL. 2524/2023 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 653/2023

3. Present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(a) Quash suspension letter No. GHPS/DD/22-23/96 dated 12.12.22 & Memorandum bearing No. GHPS/DD/22-23/101 dated 20/12/2022 in form of charge sheet passed by the respondent no. 2 respectively;

(b) allow the writ petition with costs;"

4. Insofar as challenge to the suspension order dated 12.12.2022 is concerned, the primordial ground raised in the writ petition is that the

Signature Not Verifiedorder is in violation of Section 8(4) of Delhi School Education Act,

By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:27.02.2023 14:16:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001388 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1973'), as no approval has been taken from the Director of Education.

5. It is no longer res integra that where the Managing Committee of a recognized private School intends to suspend an employee, a communication in that regard is required to be sent to the Directorate of Education and no suspension shall be made except with the prior approval of the Director, save and except, in an emergent situation by invoking the proviso to Section 8(4) of the Act, 1973 [Ref.: Ruchi Malhotra v. Guru Nanak Public School, W.P.(C) No.3567/2019, Delhi Public School & Anr. v. Director of Education, (2002) SCC OnLine Del 1086 and S.S. Tyagi v. Ravindra Public School & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2084].

6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1/DOE submits that the School has never communicated its intention to suspend the Petitioner and therefore, no approval has been granted. The Directorate, therefore, supports the case of the Petitioner that the suspension order deserves to be set aside.

7. Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the School/ Respondents No.2 to 5, on instructions, submits that since no approval has been granted by the Director, as required under Section 8(4) of the Act, the suspension order dated 12.12.2022 cannot be sustained and therefore, the School shall withdraw the said order, with liberty to take recourse to further proceedings, if so required.

8. The next challenge in the present writ petition is to the charge sheet dated 20.12.2022. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner for some time on the grounds of challenge to the charge sheet and I find that no grounds have been set out in the writ petition which can sustain a challenge to the charge sheet at this stage. Petitioner is essentially wanting the Court to set aside the charge sheet Signature Not Verifiedon merits by contending that the allegations are false and frivolous.

By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:27.02.2023 14:16:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001388 I am afraid the scope of interference in a charge sheet is extremely narrow and at this stage, the Court is precluded from entering into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations levelled against an employee. In this context, reference may be made to the celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 as well as the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra, (2010) 13 SCC 311.

9. In view of the aforesaid judgments and testing the averments in the writ petition, no case is made out to challenge the charge sheet at this stage. Faced with this, counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits, on instructions, that the Petitioner does not press the relief pertaining to the charge sheet and shall participate in the enquiry albeit without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner to agitate the issues raised in the present writ petition at the appropriate stage.

10. In view of the stand of the School that the suspension order dated 12.12.2022 is liable to be withdrawn, the same is hereby quashed and set aside, granting liberty to the School to take recourse to any further action, if so required, in accordance with law. Since the suspension order has been set aside, consequential benefits shall be granted to the Petitioner.

11. Insofar as challenge to the charge sheet is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving all contentions raised in the present writ petition open and reserving the right of the Petitioner to raise them at the appropriate stage, if so advised.

12. Writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J FEBRUARY 23, 2023/shivam/kks Signature Not Verified

By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:27.02.2023 14:16:48