JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Present petition lays a siege to an order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DST") whereby it has dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner and upheld the Discharge order dated 21.04.2008. The grievances or the umbrage raised by the Petitioner are primarily structured on applicability of statutory provisions of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "DSEA&R") and thus does not require a detailed factual narrative.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts to the extent they are necessary and relevant are that the Petitioner was appointed as an Accounts Clerk in Balwantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan / Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the "School"), which is run by Respondent No.4, a Society.

3. As the case of the Petitioner goes, he was given a warning/oral censure for alleged minor irregularities in the month of July 2003, though unwarranted, however the real trouble started when the renovation of the School building was completed by July 2007. Being an Accounts Clerk, Petitioner was directed by the then Manager to survey the market rates of construction items as the contractors had raised exorbitant bills. Following the orders, Petitioner surveyed the market and prepared a detailed report with comparative charts for different items. Resultantly, the Bills of the contractors were reduced by 35% and this annoyed Respondent No.1/Principal, as the contractors hired by him were paid at reduced rates. As soon as the term of the then Manager expired on 12.12.2007 and the new Acting Manager took over, Principal called the School Auditor for a surprise check of the Accounts. The vendetta of the Principal led to issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 19.01.2008 to the Petitioner, followed by a Chargesheet dated 05.02.2008. Vide letter dated 20.02.2008, Petitioner was placed under suspension and vide letter dated 21.02.2008, he was directed to hand over the charge to another employee.

4. As per the Petitioner the inquiry was initiated in violation of the provisions of DSEA&R and there were irregularities even while conducting the same. Inquiry Report rendered by the Inquiry Officer was sent to the Petitioner along with a Notice dated 08.04.2008 and the Petitioner represented against it on 13.04.2008. Disciplinary proceedings culminated into a penalty of Discharge and vide order dated 21.04.2008, Petitioner''s services were dispensed with. The Discharge order was assailed in an appeal before the DST under Section 8(3) of the DSEA&R. Being unsuccessful in its challenge before the DST, Petitioner filed the present petition.

5. Broadly, the legal issues which this Court is called upon to decide are as under :-

(a) Whether the Petitioner is a probationer/confirmed employee and entitled to protection of procedural safeguards of the provisions of DSEA&R ?

(b) If the provisions of DSEA&R are applicable, whether the Chargesheet was issued by the Disciplinary Committee, as per the mandate of Rules 118 and 120 of DSEA&R and if not, the effect thereof ?

(c) Whether the Discharge order passed without prior approval of the Director of Education, as required under Section 8(2) of DSEA&R, is liable to be quashed ?

6. The first and foremost contention raised by learned counsel for the Petitioner is that Rule 120 of DSEA&R provides a detailed procedure for imposing major penalty and requires the Disciplinary Authority to frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held. Rule 59 in Chapter V of DSEA&R gives a detailed Scheme of Management of Recognized Schools and Sub-Rule 2(e) clearly stipulates that the Scheme of Management shall provide for the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Managing Committee, which amongst others, clearly includes disciplinary action. Rule 118 provides that the Disciplinary Committee in respect of every recognized private school, whether aided or not, shall consist