Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Managing Committee Of The Pinnacle School - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Education & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 10050/2021, CM Appl. 31006/2021
Decided On : 18-07-2022
Natural Justice - Delhi School Education Act, 1973 - Rule 118, Rule 120 - The Pinnacle School - [TGT, PGT, DAC, Managing Committee, Inquiry Officer, DoE, Departmental Proceedings] - [Rule 118, Rule 120] - The court set aside the order of removal of the respondent No. 2 from service due to violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with statutory rules. The charge sheet was issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee without the Managing Committee considering/approving the charges, and the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Managing Committee, not the DAC. The presence of witnesses and the Presenting Officer in the DAC, who had approved the charges against the respondent No. 2, and their subsequent participation in the inquiry proceedings, was contrary to the basic principles of natural justice. The court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors. required the approval of the DoE before removing a Teacher/Employee from the services of the school. The court dismissed the petition and allowed the petitioner school to proceed against the respondent No. 2 de-novo for the alleged misconduct by strictly following the principles of natural justice and the rules framed in that regard.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent No. 2 was removed from service by the petitioner school. The court set aside the order of removal due to violation of principles of natural justice and non-compliance with statutory rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge sheet was issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee without the Managing Committee considering/approving the charges, and the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Managing Committee, not the DAC. The presence of witnesses and the Presenting Officer in the DAC, who had approved the charges against the respondent No. 2, and their subsequent participation in the inquiry proceedings, was contrary to the basic principles of natural justice. The court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors. required the approval of the DoE before removing a Teacher/Employee from the services of the school.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, non-compliance with statutory rules, approval of the DoE before removing a Teacher/Employee from the services of the school.
Ratio Decidendi: The charge sheet was issued by the Chairman of the Managing Committee without the Managing Committee considering/approving the charges, and the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Managing Committee, not the DAC. The presence of witnesses and the Presenting Officer in the DAC, who had approved the charges against the respondent No. 2, and their subsequent participation in the inquiry proceedings, was contrary to the basic principles of natural justice. The court held that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors. required the approval of the DoE before removing a Teacher/Employee from the services of the school.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and allowed the petitioner school to proceed against the respondent No. 2 de-novo for the alleged misconduct by strictly following the principles of natural justice and the rules framed in that regard.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the necessity of DoE approval before removal of a teacher/employee (Raj Kumar v. Director of Education & Ors.). (!) (!) - It analyzes alleged violations of DSEAR Rules 118 and 120, including improper constitution of the DAC, appointment of Inquiry Officer by the Managing Committee, and charge sheet issued by the Chairman rather than the DAC (and their impact on natural justice). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Tribunal's setting aside of the removal order is examined; the High Court ultimately vitiates the removal and allows de-novo proceedings strictly adhering to natural justice and DSEAR rules. (!) (!) - The case discusses whether Kathuria Public School and Raj Kumar have prospective vs. retrospective effect on DoE approval requirements under Section 8(2) DSEAR. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Final decision: the court dismisses the petition and allows the petitioner school to proceed against the respondent de-novo with proper compliance; tribunal’s order setting aside removal stands, subject to this, and the petitioner may reinitiate proceedings. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
'In view of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present writ petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 09.07.2021 passed by Shri Dilbag Singh Punia, Presiding Officer, Delhi School Tribunal, Lucknow Road, Timar Pur, Delhi- 110054 in Appeal Case No. 73 of 2013 titled as Mrs. Bindu Khanna Vs. Managing Committee, The Pinnacle School, may be quashed.
Any other order this Hon'ble Court feels appropriate in the facts of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner school and against the Respondents'
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated July 09, 2021 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No. 73 of 2013, setting aside the order bearing No. TPS/Adm/BK/2013/1104 dated July 29, 2013 passed by the Disciplinary Action Committee ("DAC?, for short) of the petitioner, i.e., The Pinnacle School, Delhi, whereby the respondent No. 2 herein was removed from service.
3. At the outset, I may provide a brief factual background as averred in the petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as a TGT by the petitioner school on January 06, 1994 and was subsequently promoted as PGT on April 01, 2006. On April 22, 2010, she was suspended by the Management of the petitioner school on account of indiscipline, misbehaviour with colleagues, students, etc. and on various other serious grounds. The Managing Committee in its meeting held on July 07, 2010 constituted a DAC as per provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 and the Rules framed there under (collectively referred to as 'DSEAR' hereinafter). The DAC comprised of the following members:-
i. Wg. Cdr. R. Demonte, Chairman
ii. Mr. K. K. Batra, Manager of the School
iii. Mr. M. K. Sethi, Government Nominee
iv. Mrs. Gail Demonte, Principal of the School
v. Mrs. Rita Sinha, Teacher Representative
vi. Education Officer, Zone 25
4. On September 29, 2010, the DAC held its meeting and discussed the charges with respect to respondent No. 2 and resolved to authorise the Chairman of the School Managing Committee to issue the charge sheet. The charge sheet was issued on the same day and sent to the respondent No. 2 through speed post as well as registered A.D. The respondent No. 2 replied to the charge sheet on October 14, 2010 denying the charges. The DAC held its meeting on October 20, 2010 and after considering the reply, decided to place the same before the Managing Committee for further action. The Managing Committee in its meeting held on October 21, 2010 appointed Sh. S. K. Bhatnagar, Advocate, as the Inquiry Officer.
5. The Inquiry Officer, after initiation of inquiry proceedings vide letter dated November 10, 2010 communicated to the respondent No. 2 that the first date of inquiry was fixed on November 16, 2010. However, the respondent No. 2 in her letter dated November 14, 2010 addressed to the Managing Committee sought an adjournment on medical grounds. The Managing Committee vide letter dated November 18, 2010 informed the respondent the next date of inquiry and also directed her that all future correspondence may be done by her directly to the Inquiry Officer. The respondent No. 2 did not appear before the Inquiry Officer even on the next date of hearing and in her letter dated November 27, 2010 objected to the appointment of Sh. S.K. Bhatnagar as an Inquiry Officer on the ground that the DSEAR does not provide for an outsider or a person who is not an educationalist to be appointed as an Inquiry Officer. After due consideration, the Inquiry Officer rejected the said objection stating that the DSEAR does not prohibit the appointment of an Advocate as an Inquiry Officer. He further assured that all the principles of natural justice would be adhered to and both parties would be given equal opportunities to present their case. The Presenting Officer of the petitioner
The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and complying with statutory rules in departmental proceedings, and the requirement of obtaining the approval o....
Procedural lapses in disciplinary inquiries, including improper constitution of committees and failure to adhere to principles of natural justice, can invalidate terminations.
The charge-sheet must be issued in accordance with Rule 118 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, and the concept of deemed approval of charge-sheet is not recognized.
The Tribunal lacks the authority to re-appreciate evidence or modify penalties unless there is a violation of natural justice; the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the statutory provision....
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
