Prematurity of a petition challenging disciplinary proceedings and the right to a personal hearing before the Director of Education under the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Petitioner herein has assailed the impugned decision of the Disciplinary Committee, which according to his knowledge, has decided to impose the penalty of termination on the Petitioner.

2. The facts which require to be narrated are in a narrow compass.

3. Petitioner herein was appointed as PET in Preet Public Senior Secondary School / Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as ''School'') on 02.01.1995. As per the case of the Petitioner, in 2010 he was involved in a litigation in this Court, relating to the non-payment of the benefits of the 5 th Pay Commission and writ petition being W.P.(C) 128/2010 was decided on 03.03.2010 directing the grant of said benefits. On account of this litigation, the School became vindictive against the Petitioner and stared searching ways to terminate him.

4. On 01.12.2012, the School had issued a Memorandum to the Petitioner on the ground that the child of the Petitioner had been wrongly admitted under EWS category. Memorandum was considered by the Directorate of Education and was found to be pseudonymous, thus, no action was taken and the case was closed.

5. In April 2019, Petitioner raised his grievance with regard to nonpayment of the benefits of the 7th Pay Commission and brought the matter to the notice of the Chairman of the SMC. Out of sheer vindictiveness, School has again issued a Memorandum on 10.08.2019 on the same allegations regarding the admission of the child of the Petitioner under the EWS category.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that an inquiry was held on the basis of the said Memorandum and the Petitioner has now learnt that the School has decided to impose major penalty of termination and has sent the case for prior approval of the Director of Education under Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act''). He also points out that on 30.07.2020, Petitioner has sent a representation to Respondent No.3 requesting him to reject the proposal and not grant approval for termination of his service. He has also requested to provide a personal hearing to the Petitioner before any decision is taken, but there has been no response.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Chargesheet has been issued out of vindictiveness on account of the litigation in which the Petitioner was embroiled. The action to issue a chargesheet has been taken on a letter issued by the SDM to the School Management, which is an action impermissible in law. He further submits that once the Memorandum issued in 2012, on the same allegation, was not acted upon and the issue stood closed, it was not open to the School to issue a chargesheet on the same set of allegations, only because the SDM has requested the school, to do so.

8. Mr. Vineet Mehta, appearing on behalf of the School submits that chargesheet has been issued on the basis of a letter received on 30.05.2019 from the SDM, informing the School that the Petitioner has procured an Income Certificate dated 16.10.2012, issued by SDM (Preet Vihar) on the basis of false Affidavit and documents and the SDM has thus requested the School to take necessary action for furnishing false information and giving false evidence to the Government.

9. Mr. Mehta also draws the attention of the Court to an earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 13191/2019 dated 13.12.2019 and argued that the Petitioner had approached the Court challenging the Chargesheet and the disciplinary proceedings but after some hearing had sought to withdraw the writ petition. Petitioner was granted liberty to agitate his pleas at the appropriate stage. He submits that the appropriate stage has not yet arrived, since the matter is still pending before the Directorate of Education for prior approval. Law is settled that the Courts should not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings before their culmination unless exceptional circumstances are made out to do so.

10. Ms. Vibha Mahaj