Naresh Kumar Gandhi vs Cambridge Foundation School

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 3249

JYOTI SINGH
Naresh Kumar Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Cambridge Foundation School – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saumil Sharma, Mr. Ravi Kant Yadav and Ms. Divya Parashar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Pramod Gupta and Ms. Mahima Shekhawat, Advocates, for R-1 and 2.
Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate, for R-3.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and background facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. complaints and procedural challenges relating to the inquiry. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. court's analysis on bias, evidence, and procedural lapses. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
4. final ruling quashing penalties and outlining further actions. (Para 58)

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J.

1. By this writ petition, Petitioner assails the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the learned Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `DST') in Appeal No. 17/2011 as also to set aside the impugned orders dated 14.03.2011 and 18.03.2011 passed by Respondent No. 1/Cambridge Foundation School (hereinafter referred to as the `School'). Writ of mandamus is sought directing the School to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential service benefits. Respondent No. 3 is Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as the `DoE').

2. Facts to the extent necessary and as captured in the writ petition are that P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Del) 3249

JYOTI SINGHNaresh Kumar Gandhi – AppellantVersusCambridge Foundation School – Respondent

JYOTI SINGH
Naresh Kumar Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
Cambridge Foundation School – Respondent