Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUNIL GAUR, JJ.
VS AGRICULTURE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL THR ITS MANAGER - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION & ANR - Respondents
LPA 192 OF 2017
Decided On : 12-09-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Nitin Jain, proxy for Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Advocate, Mr. Hari Prakash.
The principle of proportionality and the nature of charges should be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for misconduct in employment disputes.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Employment Dispute - Delhi School Education Act, 1973, Section 8(2) - Summary: The court upheld the decision of the Directorate of Education not to grant approval for the dismissal of an employee from service. The court considered the nature of the charges and the doctrine of proportionality in reaching its decision. The key legal provisions discussed include the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, and the principle of proportionality.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought approval for the dismissal of an employee for alleged misconduct. The Directorate of Education refused to grant approval, and the school challenged this decision in writ proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Single Judge held that the extreme penalty of dismissal was not warranted, considering the nature of the charges and the employee's conduct.
Issues: The main issue was whether the dismissal of the employee was justified based on the alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the charges, the principle of proportionality, and the lack of follow-up criminal proceedings in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court upheld the decision of the Directorate of Education and set aside the directions to pay costs.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the Single Judge which upheld the decision of the Directorate of Education not to grant approval to the proposed punishment of removal from service.
2. The facts are that the respondent employee was working with the appellant’s school as Laboratory Assistant from 1993. Alleging misconduct, the appellant Management suspended its employee on 31.08.2013. Since the appellant school is aided by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the extent of 95% and also under the provisions of Section 8 (2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, approval was necessary, it sought such approval which was granted on 03.10.2013. This was followed by a charge-sheet on 25.11.2013 after which the Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer’s report was furnished on 12.05.2014. The disciplinary authority of the School on 17.05.2014 sought to impose the penalty of dismissal from service. This move also required the approval of the Directorate which was sought on 02.06.2014. On 21.11.2014, the Directorate refused to approve the penalty of dismissal and communicated its decision to the school. The order of the Directorate was challenged by the school in writ proceedings.
3. The order of the Directorate which was impugned before the learned Single Judge inter alia states as follows: -
“AND WHEREAS, while forwarding the Inquiry Report in the matter of Sompal, Lab. Asstt., the DDE (NW-A) submitted her observation on the Inquiry Report in the matte, as under:
i. The Inquiry Report in respect of Sh. Sompal dated 12.05.201 and proceedings are there, but supporting documents are not available on record/in file.
ii. As per the Procedure for withdrawal of PF Loan from the Bank, submitted by AAO(DNWA), the GPF of the staff of the school were maintained by the bank in the separate bank account in the name of the Manager of the school and the concerned staff/employee and for any withdrawal from the said account, signatures of the manager and concerned employee is required.
iii. The relevant file was given to Sh. Sompal, Lab. Asstt, and he directly approached to the Bank.
iv. Whether Sh. Sompal was alone or someone (staff from the school) was with him to withdraw the money form bank.
v. Loan was approved by the school management, the file was taken by hand, personally by Sh. Sompal, and loan money was directly taken from bank by Sh. Sompal, but the school authorities have not taken action against the Bank, neither any proper FIR has been lodged in this case.
vi. There figures no embezzlement in money, but the procedure manipulation on the part of Sh. Sompal.
“In view of the above, the punishment proposed by the Disciplinary authority to remove the charged official from service, cannot be recommended. Instead of that the Competent Authority may consider from any less punishment or with-holding increment(s), or as considered for, against Sh. Sompal, Lab. Asstt. (under suspension).”
AND WHEREAS, from the foregoing observations, it is observed that there is administrative lapse on the part of the Management of the V.S. Agriculture School, Khera Garhi, Delhi in handing over the concerned files and cheque to Sh. Sompal, Lab. Asstt. Even proper FIR has neither been lodged by the school authorities nor by the concerned bank against Sh. Sompal, Lab. Asstt. for any kind of embezzlement of Government money. As regards other charges no supportive documents are available on record.
Now, therefore, I Oadmini Singla, Director (Education), is of the opinion that the penalty of removal from service upon Sh. Sompal, Lab. Assistant, is not commensurate with the changes and recommend that the Managing Committee of V.S. Agri. Sr. Sec. School, Khera Garhi, Delhi may consider imposing minor penalty as defined under rule 117(a) of DSEAR, 1973.”
4. The learned Single Judge who considered the entirety of circumstances was of the opinion that the submissions of the school were unmerited and that having regard to the nature of the cha
