2017 Supreme(Del) 984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ARCHANA KUKREJA – Petitioner
Versus
MANAGING COMMITTEE ST. ANGELS SCHOOL ROHINI & OTHERS – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 5284 & 5285 of 2016
Decided On : 23-03-2017
For the Petitioner: Ms. Indrani Ghosh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prakash Gautam, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Mr. Rizwan and Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi.
The specific rules under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 only pertain to leave and general principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and do not provide for the applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules.
Headnote:
CCS (CCA) Rules - Enquiry Proceedings - Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 - Rule 111, 119, 120 - The court discussed the applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules to enquiry proceedings against employees of private schools in Delhi governed by the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. The court analyzed a circular issued by the Director of Education and specific rules under the DSEAR, 1973 to determine the applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules. The court concluded that the circular did not provide for the applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules and that the specific rules under the DSEAR, 1973 only pertained to leave and general principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment of a Defence Assistant and a declaration that the Enquiry Officer wrongly noted that CCS (CCA) Rules will not apply to the subject enquiry proceedings against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, except for the issue of appointment of Defence Assistant which was no longer relevant.
Issues: Applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules to enquiry proceedings under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed a circular issued by the Director of Education and specific rules under the DSEAR, 1973 to determine the applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules. The court concluded that the circular did not provide for the applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules and that the specific rules under the DSEAR, 1973 only pertained to leave and general principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, except for the issue of appointment of Defence Assistant which was no longer relevant.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
W.P. (C) No. 5284/2016
1. In this writ petition two prayers were made. One prayer was for seeking appointment of a Defence Assistant for the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings, and which relief has become infrcutuous because petitioner has been allowed to appoint a Defence Assistant. The second relief prayed by the petitioner is for declaration that the Enquiry Officer while passing the order dated 3.2.2016 has wrongly noted that CCS (CCA) Rules will not apply to subject enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and that what will apply to the enquiry proceedings are the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (DSEAR, 1973) inasmuch as petitioner is an employee of a school in Delhi which is governed by the DSEAR, 1973.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the argument that CCS (CCA) Rules apply to enquiry proceedings even under the DSEAR, 1973 places reliance upon the circular of the Director of Education dated 25.3.1991 to argue that if there is nothing in the DSEAR, 1973 with respect to conducting of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority, then the CCS (CCA) Rules will apply with respect to the procedure to be adopted by the Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry and giving of the report. This para 3 of the Circular No. F-17/3/Misc./Per./GASTA/91/3824-4624, dated 25.3.1991 of the Director of Education reads as under:-
“3. In the matter of discipline/leave. There is a provision in the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 and rules made thereunder, the applicability of rules governing Govt. employees will be applicable employees of aided/unaided schools where the Act and Rules made thereunder is silent.”
3. It is seen that this para 3 of the circular dated 25.3.1991 is not happily worded because this para goes on the assumption and presumption that there is a provision in the DSEAR, 1973 providing that in case the DSEAR, 1973 is silent then CCS (CCA) Rules will apply to disciplinary proceedings.
4. I have put it to counsel for the petitioner to show me any provision in the DSEAR, 1973 which provides that in case the DSEAR, 1973 is silent on an aspect/issue, of the procedure in enquiry proceedings then, CCS (CCA) Rules will apply to enquiry proceedings being conducted by the Enquiry Officer pursuant to appropriate directions by the disciplinary authority of the school. Learned counsel for the petitioner places in response to the Court query reliance upon Rule 111 of the DSEAR, 1973 which provides that with respect to an employee of a recognized private school, whether aided or not, such employee will be entitled to leave as admissible to employees of a corresponding status in a government school. This Rule 111 of the DSEAR, 1973 reads as under:-
“111. Leave of absence- Every employee of a recognised private school, whether aided or nut, shall be entitled to such leave as are admissible to employees of a corresponding status in Government schools.”
5. It is seen that the aforesaid Rule 111 is only for the applicability of government rules with respect to leave and this rule does pertain to/is with respect to disciplinary proceedings conducted by a school/employer. The procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings which are conducted under the DSEAR, 1973 is that which is provided under Rules 119 and 120, and these rules do not provide any specified strict procedure except requiring of compliance of general principles of natural justice. These Rule 119 and 120 of the DSEAR, 1973 read as under:-
“119. Procedure for imposing minor penalties- No order imposing a minor penalty shall be made except after informing the employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and the allegation on which such action is proposed to be taken and except after giving to the employee an opportunity to make any representation against the proposed action.
120. Procedure for imposing major penalty (1) No order imposing on an employee any major penalty