Back
High Court Of Delhi
MANAGER,ARYA SAMAJ,GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARYSCHOOL - Appellant
Versus
SUNRITA THAKUR ETC - Respondent
Civil Writ 2483 of 1989
Decided On : 09/19/1990
EDUCATION - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DELHI SCHOOL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - PAYMENT OF SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND BENEFITS - PENSION - DELHI EDUCATION RULES, 1973 - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1972.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 1, the Principal of Arya Samaj Girls Higher Secondary School, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregularities. The Disciplinary Committee found her guilty of several charges and proposed to impose the major penalty of removal from service. However, considering her length of service and old age, the Committee decided to compulsorily retire her from service and recover the amount embezzled by her. The Director of Education approved the proposed penalty, and the Acting Manager of the School communicated the decision to respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 challenged the order in the Delhi School Tribunal, which quashed the order on the grounds that the Acting Manager was not competent to pass the order and that he had participated in the enquiry proceedings in violation of a High Court order. The Tribunal also directed the School to pay respondent No. 1 all her arrears of pay and attendant benefits until her superannuation on 31st March 1983.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Acting Manager was indeed not competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement, as he was not a member of the Disciplinary Committee and had been prohibited from participating in the proceedings by the High Court. The Court also held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the salary, allowances, and other benefits to be paid to respondent No. 1, as this matter was governed by Rule 121 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Managing Committee. The Court further held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the payment of pension to respondent No. 1, as this matter was governed by Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which conferred jurisdiction on the employer.
Issues: 1. Whether the Acting Manager was competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement. 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the salary, allowances, and other benefits to be paid to respondent No. 1. 3. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the payment of pension to respondent No. 1.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Acting Manager was not competent to pass the order of compulsory retirement, as he was not a member of the Disciplinary Committee and had been prohibited from participating in the proceedings by the High Court. 2. The Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the salary, allowances, and other benefits to be paid to respondent No. 1, as this matter was governed by Rule 121 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Managing Committee. 3. The Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the payment of pension to respondent No. 1, as this matter was governed by Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which conferred jurisdiction on the employer.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the writ petition. The order of the Tribunal quashing the order of compulsory retirement was upheld. The remaining part of the Tribunal's order, with regard to the payment of salary, allowances, and other benefits to respondent No. 1, was quashed. The Court clarified that it would be open to the employer to take up these matters for consideration and decision in accordance with the relevant Rules.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, that a writ of certiorari maybe issued for quashing an order dated 26th of May, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) made by the Delhi School Tribunal.
( 2 ) ON 4th of September, 1976, respondent No. 1 was appointed as temporary Principal of the Arya Samaj Girls Higher Secondary School, hereinafter referred to as the School. Certain irregularities committed by her were noticed by the Managing Committee of the School. The Managing Committee constituted a Disciplinary Committee for taking disciplinary action against her under Rules 118 and 120 of the Delhi Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ).
( 3 ) TWENTY-FIVE charges were framed against respondent No. 1. She was called upon by a notice dated 24th of December, 1977 to submit a written state- ment of her defence. She was placed under suspension during enquiry. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted his report on 24th of May, 1979. The Disciplinary Committee accepted the report, and came to the conclusion that charges I to 17, 19 to 21 and 23 to 25 were proved against respondent No. 1. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to her. A notice dated 16th of June, 1979 was given to her staling that it was proposed to impose on her major penalty of removal from service and calling upon her to submit her representation against the proposed action. On 2nd of July, 1979, respondent No. 1 submitted her representation.
( 4 ) IN early September, 1979, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition, being C. W. P. No. 1260/79 and challenged the disciplinary proceedings held upto that stage on the ground, inter alia, of mala-fides against Shri Jyoti Pershad, Chairman of the School and S/shri Dharam Chand, S. C. Khaiidelwal and S. Chaturvedi, some of the other members of the Disciplinary Committee, and for a writ of prohibition against them from acting as members of the Disciplinary Committee and from holding any further proceedings. A notice was issued to the respondents in that case to show cause why Rule Nisi should not be issued. In the meanwhile, an order was made directing that no final orders will be passed by the Disciplinary Committee. Later, the stay order was made absolute.
( 5 ) ON 13th of December, 1979, when the writ petition was taken up, after some hearing, the parties settled their dispute and the same was resolved in accordance with the statements recorded that day. The order and the statements of the petitioner (Respondent No. 1-herein) and counsel for the parties recorded that day are reproduced below :
"statement of Shri D. N. Vohra, Advocate and petitioner : As far as this petition is concerned, I will be satisfied if Shri Jyoti Prasad, Shri S. C. Khandelwal and Smt. S. Chaturvedi do not take part in any further deliberations of the Disciplinary Committee constituted under Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules and the remaining members of the Disciplinary Committee proceed with hearing me and further proceedings are conducted from the stage of the proceedings as on 5th September, 1979. R. O. and A. C. 13. 12. 1979. sd/- JUDGE sd/- JUDGB Vo141 Statement of Shri H. N. Chaudhary, Advocate : In view of the objections raised by the petitioner to further participation in the deliberations of the Disciplinary Committee by Shri Jyoti Prasad, Shri S. C. Khandelwal and Smt. S. Chaturvedi, we agree that as far as this writ petition is concerned these three persons will not take part any further in the deliberations of the Disciplinary Committee and the petitioner will be given a hearing as from 5th September, 1979. R. O. and A. C. sd/- JUDGE 13. 12. 79 sd/- JUDGE ORDER In accordance with the statements of the parties direction is hereby issued that the Disciplinary Committee constituted under Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules notified in letter dated 4th January, 1978 to the petitio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
