Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
Sangeeta Thapar - Petitioner
Versus
Director Education and Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 8911 of 2011 & CM APPL. 20174 of 2011
Decided On : 25-10-2018
The court quashed the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal and remanded the proceedings initiated against the petitioner to be reconsidered by the disciplinary authority with reference to Article-III of the Articles of Charge alone. The petitioner was given an opportunity to lead her own evidence, by way of examination-in-chief, with corresponding right, of the School, to cross-examine her.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher in the Respondent No. 2-School, was terminated from service vide order dated 25th April, 2003, passed by the Principal of the School. Her appeal, against the said order of termination, was also dismissed, by the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) vide order dated 15th July, 2011. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the proceedings against her in their entirety, commencing with the charge-sheet, dated 18th December, 2001 and proceeding, via inquiry report, dated 1st February, 2002, to the order, dated 25th April, 2003 of the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 15th July, 2011, of the Appellate Authority i.e. the learned Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the IO has proceeded in violation of the principles of natural justice, by not allowing the petitioners request, made on 16th October, 2002, for one adjournment in order for her to record her statement, as her defence evidence, resultantly, the entire proceedings before the IO, commencing from that stage, i.e. from 16th October, 2002, culminating in the Inquiry Report, its acceptance by the Disciplinary Authority, and the dismissal of the appeal, preferred thereagainst, by the learned Tribunal, deserved to be set aside, for the reasons already adduced hereinabove, Articles II, IV and V, of the Articles of Charge against the petitioner, would be required to be dropped, and the recommendations, in the Inquiry Report, regarding Article-III, of the Articles of Charge, would require to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, and the matter reconsidered.
Issues: Whether the IO has proceeded in violation of the principles of natural justice, by not allowing the petitioners request, made on 16th October, 2002, for one adjournment in order for her to record her statement, as her defence evidence, Whether the entire proceedings before the IO, commencing from that stage, i.e. from 16th October, 2002, culminating in the Inquiry Report, its acceptance by the Disciplinary Authority, and the dismissal of the appeal, preferred thereagainst, by the learned Tribunal, deserved to be set aside, Whether for the reasons already adduced hereinabove, Articles II, IV and V, of the Articles of Charge against the petitioner, would be required to be dropped, and Whether the recommendations, in the Inquiry Report, regarding Article-III, of the Articles of Charge, would require to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, and the matter reconsidered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the IO has proceeded in violation of the principles of natural justice, by not allowing the petitioners request, made on 16th October, 2002, for one adjournment in order for her to record her statement, as her defence evidence, resultantly, the entire proceedings before the IO, commencing from that stage, i.e. from 16th October, 2002, culminating in the Inquiry Report, its acceptance by the Disciplinary Authority, and the dismissal of the appeal, preferred thereagainst, by the learned Tribunal, deserved to be set aside, for the reasons already adduced hereinabove, Articles II, IV and V, of the Articles of Charge against the petitioner, would be required to be dropped, and the recommendations, in the Inquiry Report, regarding Article-III, of the Articles of Charge, would require to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, and the matter reconsidered.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Tribunal and remanded the proceedings initiated against the petitioner to be reconsidered by the disciplinary authority with reference to Article-III of the Articles of Charge alone. The petitioner was given an opportunity to lead her own evidence, by way of examination-in-chief, with corresponding right, of the School, to cross-examine her.
1. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against her, the services of the petitioner, a teacher in the Respondent No. 2-School (hereinafter referred to as “the School”) were terminated, vide order dated 25th April, 2003, passed by the Principal of the School.
2. Her appeal, against the said order of termination, was also dismissed, by the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) vide order dated 15th July, 2011.
3. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the proceedings against her in their entirety, commencing with the charge-sheet, dated 18th December, 2001 and proceeding, via inquiry report, dated 1st February, 2002, to the order, dated 25th April, 2003 of the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 15th July, 2011, of the Appellate Authority i.e. the learned Tribunal.
The Charge-Sheet
4. The charge-sheet, dated 18th December, 2001, issued to the petitioner, contained five Article of Charges. Article-I was found, by the Inquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as “IO”) not to be proved, and, the said order having been accepted by the disciplinary authority, and the Appellate Authority, the said Article of Charge need not burden this judgment. The essence of the remaining four Articles of Charge may be extracted as under:
(i) Article-II alleged that the Petitioner had lodged a false complaint against the Principal of the School, with the Punjabi Bagh Police Station, in which she referred to a visit, to her house, by two teachers, who, allegedly, asked the petitioner to have herself transferred to the Pitampura School, or to face dire consequences. However, the Article of Charge alleged, inquiry and investigation, by the Police, revealed that the complaint of the petitioner was baseless. As such, it was alleged that “by lodging false complaint with the Police, Smt. Sangeeta Thapar has been guilty of conduct involving moral turpitude and failed to show due respect to the constituted authority of the School in violation of Rule 123(1)(a)(xvii) and 123(1)(c)(ii) of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “DSE Rules”)”.
(ii) Article-III of the Articles of Charge against the petitioner alleged that the petitioner had, as in-charge of School Bus No. 20, failed to board five students in the bus, leaving them playing on the school ground, on 21st February, 2000, though she marked these students as present in the Bus Register. As such, the petitioner was charged with having knowingly and willfully neglected an urgent and important duty connected with the safety of the School students, which was required to be accorded paramount importance, as per orders issued by the Supreme Court and directions of the Directorate of Education (hereinafter referred to as “DOE”). The said five students, it was alleged, had, later, to be sent home, from the school, by taxi, which the school had to arrange. This act of the petitioner, it was alleged, amounted to knowing and wilful neglect of duty, by her, in violation of Rule 123(1)(i) of the DSE Rules.
(iv) Article-IV alleged that the petitioner had, on 16th September, 1999, refused to take bus attendance and to sign her duty roster, as directed by the transport in-charge of the School. It was also alleged, in the said Article of Charge, that she misbehaved with another teacher of the School, namely Yashoda Bisht, by using abusive language and derogatory remarks. This, it was alleged, amounted to violation, on the part of the petitioner, to carry out work connected with the duty assigned to her, as well as misbehavior towards another teacher of the School, thereby contravening Rules 123(1)(a)(xviii) and 123 (1)(c)(i) of the DSE Rules.
(iv) Article-V of the Articles of Charge alleged that the petitioner had used rude and indecorous language in the representations addressed by her to the Principal of the School/Manager. The Article o
AI
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
