JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--By this writ petition, Petitioner lays a challenge to the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the `DST') whereby it has dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner being Appeal No. 53/2017 and upheld the order dated 28.04.2017 whereby Petitioner was removed from the services of the School while working on the post of PGT (Commerce). The umbrage raised by the Petitioner is primarily predicated on applicability of the statutory provisions of Delhi School Education Act & Rules, 1973 and does not require a very detailed factual narrative.

2. Facts to the extent necessary are that Respondent No. 1/School Management of Hira Lal Jain Senior Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the `School') is a recognized and aided Senior Secondary School claiming to have a minority status. Petitioner possessing a Doctorate degree was appointed as PGT (Commerce) on 02.08.1995 in the School. On 11.11.2006 Petitioner was suspended and feeling aggrieved with his alleged continuance discrimination in the School on various issues, he tendered his resignation on 05.12.2006, which was subsequently withdrawn on 02.03.2007. Respondent No. 2/Directorate of Education (`DoE') directed the School to reinstate the Petitioner w.e.f. 02.03.2007, which was duly complied with. As per the Petitioner, he was continuously harassed and discriminated even thereafter and this vindictiveness and hostile attitude resulted in issuance of a show cause notice/memorandum dated 06.04.2017, whereby Petitioner was called upon to explain and respond to allegations pertaining to delayed checking of answer-sheets and submission of result of Class XI-B, low pass percentage for Class XI for the academic year 2016-2017 and submission of two different award lists of Class XI-B (Arts-Business Studies). Petitioner filed a response to the memorandum and finding his reply to the memorandum unsatisfactory, it was decided by the managing committee to remove him from services. Pursuant to the unanimous resolution of the managing committee, services of the Petitioner were terminated vide letter dated 28.04.2017, tendering payment of Rs.2,53,080/- in lieu of three months' notice salary and by the same letter, DoE was informed of the action taken. By another letter dated 04.05.2017, the School responded to DoE's letter dated 29.04.2017 and informed the DoE that being a minority institution, prior approval of DoE was not required under Section 8(2) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act 1973').

3. Aggrieved with the termination order, Petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 53/2017, before the DST and vide order dated 13.02.2018, DST dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no improvement in the work and conduct of the Petitioner and this was not conducive to the interest of the students. In respect of non-compliance with provision of Section 8(2) of Act 1973, DST held that the said provision was inapplicable to the School being a minority institution.

4. Order of DST was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P. (C) 1785/2018 and vide order dated 26.02.2018, Court set aside the DST order dated 13.02.2018 and remanded the matter back for deciding the appeal afresh after examining two crucial issues: (a) whether the procedure for inquiry prescribed under Rule 120 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Rules 1973') could be dispensed with; and (b) effect of not constituting the disciplinary committee in accordance with Rule 118 of Rules 1973. The appeal was re-heard by DST and finally by the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2018 the appeal was dismissed and it is this judgment which is assailed in the present writ petition.

5. Reading of the impugned judgment shows that the Appeal was dismissed for the reasons: (a) Rule 120 is only directory and not mandatory and this is fortified by use of the words `as far as may be' in