Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Sandhya Bindal - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6975 of 2020; Civil Miscellaneous No. 23831 of 2020, 23832 of 2020
Decided On : 24-11-2020
Sandeep Jindal, Advocate, V. Balaji, Advocate, Kirti Uppal, Advocate, Sidharth Chopra, Advocate, Aditya Raj, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appropriate remedy for challenging a termination order under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules is to file an appeal before the Tribunal, as provided under Section 8(3) of the DSEAR.
Headnote:
Termination Order - Challenge to Termination Order under Delhi School Education Act and Rules - Rules 120, 123, 59 of DSEAR - The court held that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Tribunal by filing an appeal against the order of termination. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable in this Court, leaving it open to the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a teacher, was appointed as Officiating Principal in a school and faced allegations of misconduct. The school initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (DSEAR) and ultimately terminated the petitioner's services. The petitioner challenged the termination order in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Tribunal by filing an appeal against the order of termination. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable in this Court, leaving it open to the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the petition in the court, considering the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Tribunal under the DSEAR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the DSEAR enable an employee of a recognized private school to appeal against an order of dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank before the Tribunal constituted under Section 11 of the DSEAR. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shashi Gaur vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors., which upheld the availability of an appeal as a more efficacious remedy for terminated employees.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable in this Court, leaving it open to the Petitioner to approach the Tribunal in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J. - Challenge in the present petition is to a Termination Order dated 06.03.2020 passed by Respondent No.2 / Ramjas School (hereinafter referred to as ''School''). A writ of mandamus is sought for reinstatement of the Petitioner in service with back wages, salary, seniority and arrears in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ''DSEAR''). Petitioner also prays for declaring the inquiry proceedings held against her as well as the Inquiry Report ultra vires the provisions of the DSEAR and CCS (CCA) Rules and also seeks compensation for alleged harassment, defamation, mental agony and loss of career.
2. The facts as set out in the petition and required for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as PGT (Chemistry) Teacher in the School in July, 2000. After rendering 14 years of service, she was appointed as Officiating Principal in May, 2014 and in this regard a Certificate dated 20.09.2016 was issued by the School highlighting her satisfactory service as well as in appreciation of her leadership qualities and competency. Pursuant to a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as "DPC") held on 22.09.2016, Petitioner was promoted as a Regular Principal of the School.
3. According to the Petitioner the trouble started in her life when one Mr. Gupta was appointed as Manager of the School with effect from 19.10.2016 and soon thereafter different sections of Respondent Nos.2 and 4 and its Trustees started running the affairs of the School and differences of opinion emerged amongst the members of Respondent No.4. Petitioner was pressurized to accept various unethical practices, while discharging the official duties which she refused to do.
4. Petitioner avers that a complaint dated 03.05.2017 was made to Respondent No.1 / Govt. of NCT of Delhi with respect to the alleged harassment by the School, more particularly by the Chairman. A complaint was also made on 30.06.2017 to the Delhi Commission for Women which is self explanatory. On 20.07.2017 an order was however passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 24(3) of the DSEAR directing the Management of the School to take action against the Petitioner for committing a breach of code of conduct based on an Inquiry Report dated 11.07.2017 of a Committee of 4 members.
5. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6354/2017, which was dismissed on 26.07.2017 with an observation that the Court would refrain itself from going into the relevancy/sufficiency of the material available with the Inquiry Committee. Subsequently, the Petitioner was placed under suspension vide Suspension Order dated 25.07.2017, invoking provisions of Rule 115 of the DSEAR. On 31.08.2017 Petitioner filed an appeal bearing LPA No.578/2017 against the order dated 26.07.2017, in which the Division Bench issued notice on 01.09.2017.
6. In the meantime, on 04.10.2017 a Show Cause Notice was issued by the School asking the Petitioner to respond within seven working days. It was alleged in the Show Cause Notice that a large number of complaints were lodged by the Teachers, parents and staff of the School against the Petitioner which included harassment of students, illegal suspension of students including corporal punishments, misbehaviour with parents, etc. Petitioner submitted a response to the said notice and sought the documents to enable her to file a detailed response. According to the Petitioner the documents were not supplied and vide letter dated 22.12.2017 last opportunity was given to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, failing which Disciplinary Committee would proceed as per law.
7. Vide order dated 22.01.2018 suspension of the Petitioner was continued. Petitioner thereafter filed a suit for mandatory injunction before the Trial Court seeking directions to the School to supply the documents and materials as requested by her in the
