Suresh Kait, J.

CM Nos.8165/2012, 8167/2012, 8169/2012, 8171/2012,8173/2012, 8177/2012, 8182/2012, 8185/2012 (Exemption)

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) Nos. 3903-07/2012, 3909/2012, 3911/2012, 3913/2012

1. These petitions have been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.05.2112, whereby the respondents were directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits with full salary w.e.f. 11.05.2005 and an interest @ 12% per annum on arrears of back wages. The reasons recorded by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal are that respondent school had not appointed any inquiry officer and no proceedings of the disciplinary authority have been placed on record. No notice in writing was ever issued to the respondents conveying the proposed action to be taken by the disciplinary authority. No representation was called for from them. Major penalty was imposed upon the respondents without following the procedure or holding a domestic inquiry. Not only that the disciplinary authority failed to observe the principles of natural justice but it also failed to adopt the substantive procedure prescribed for holding a departmental inquiry.

2. The Ld. Tribunal opined that the orders of dismissal of the respondents were illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

3. Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of all the eight petitions preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 11.05.2012, passed by the Ld. Tribunal by disposing of eight appeals by common judgment.

4. All the respondents were working as teachers for different subjects in the respondent school except Ms. Meena Sharma at the time of her removal from service of respondent school. The facts of all the petitions are common. I find that Ld. Tribunal has recorded the Articles of charges of all the respondents teachers and came to the conclusion that Sub Rule 1 & 2 of Rule 20 of the Rules of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 have not been complied with.

5. It is recorded in the impugned judgment that this court while deciding a case of Kathuria Public School V. Directorate of Education, 113 (2004) DLT 703 has held that the prior or ex-post facto approval of the Directorate of Education is not required for imposing any penalty on an employee in case of private unaided recognized school. Admittedly the respondent school is an unaided one. The respondent school was required to follow the whole of the procedure as contained in sub-Rule (1) of Rule 120 of the Rules for imposing the major penalty except that the approval of the Directorate of Education for imposing any penalty was not required.

6. It is further recorded that not only the Disciplinary Authority failed to observe the principle of Natural justice but it also failed to adopt the substantive procedure prescribed for holding a departmental inquiry.

7. While allowing the appeal of the respondents, the Tribunal has came to the conclusion that the impugned order passed against the appellants were illegal and without any justification. Therefore, the orders passed by the petitioner were set aside and all the respondents/appellants were reinstated in service with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits with full salary w.e.f. 11.05.2005 and an interest @ 12% per annum on arrears of back wages.

8. Mr. Shanker Raju, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Act has not been complied with, however, the Tribunal should have given an opportunity at least to hold a proper inquiry afresh against the teachers who had committed misdemeanour as mentioned in the Articles charge issued to them. As back wages are concerned, that is in domain of the disciplinary authority at the time of final disposal of the departmental enquiry. The ld. Tribunal has wrongly allowed to back wages.

9. Ld. counsel has relied upon a case of Manager, Arya Samaj, Girls Higher Secondary School V. S