SURESH KAIT, J. :-

CM. NO. 11810/2012 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5752/2012

1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.10.2011 passed by ld. Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal.

2. Instant petition has been argued mainly on the grounds that ld. Tribunal has failed to consider the limitation provided under Section 8 (3) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973, which requires that an employee of recognized private school, who has been dismissed or reduced or removed may, within three months, prefer an Appeal before Appellate Tribunal.

3. However, in the present case services of respondent no. 1 were terminated on 24.08.2004 and his termination was duly communicated to him. But, the respondent no. 1 preferred an Appeal before the ld. Tribunal on 22.11.2006 i.e. with a delay of 739 days without any sufficient reason or cause.

4. On the other ground, ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the respondent no. 1 was involved in the activity of moral turpitude. During course of his service, petitioner Management received various complaints of sexual harassment from parents of Girl Students and also from female staff of the School, which allegedly affected the reputation of the School and such conduct of Respondent No.1 teacher was against the interest of the institution and the future of the students as well.

5. On perusal of the impugned order, the Ld. Tribunal has opined as under:

“Admittedly the Appellant was working in the Respondent School in the capacity of Trained Graduate Teacher. The Respondent School failed to place on record proceedings of any domestic inquiry allegedly held by it. No report of the Inquiry Officer has been filed. The inquiry allegedly conducted relates to an inquiry on the complaints filed by the Appellant to the Directorate of Education.

The memorandum dated 20.10.2006 issue by the Dy. Director of Education (reproduced above) shows that the Respondent School had not conducted any domestic inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment of the female colleagues and the girl students as alleged. Not even the charge-sheet was served upon the Appellant. The removal from service is a major penalty in terms of Rule 117 of Delhi School Education Rule-1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule). No major penalty can be imposed upon an employee except after a domestic inquiry in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules. Act of the Respondent School in terminating the services of the Appellant without holding a domestic inquiry was in gross violation of law. Services of the Appellant have been terminated illegally and arbitrarily. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with 50% of the back-wages from the date of termination of service i.e. 25.08.2004 till date. He shall be paid full salary and all other benefits w.e.f from today i.e. from the date of orders. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.”

6. The case of respondent no. 1 before the Tribunal was that he was appointed as TGT (Social Studies) in Hindon Public Sr. Secondary School, Harsh Vihar, Delhi–93 on 15.07.2002 against a permanent post, however, not given any formal letter of appointment. In august, 2004, he asked the petitioner School for providing him his Provident Fund number. Upon this, School authorities became annoyed and asked him not to come to the School w.e.f 25.08.2004. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint with the Provident Fund Department on 24.08.2004. On 25.08.2004, he was not allowed to enter the School. He went to School in September, 2004, but was sent back with the assurance that a communication in writing would be sent to him.

7. Finally, he lodged a complaint with the Director of Education on 18.01.2005. He sent a representation to the Principle of the petitioner school on 06.04.2005. Thereafter, Director of Education directed th