Dismissal without prior approval of DOE under Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 is not sustainable.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No. 61/2009, whereby dismissal order against petitioner dated 14.10.2009 issued by respondent no. 1 school, has been upheld.

2. Petitioner worked as Laboratory Attendant in the Chemistry Department of respondent no. 1 school, having joined the school on 22.11.1983.

3. A complaint dated 08.05.2009 was received against petitioner. As per the complaint, on 08.06.2008, when the complainant Mrs. Subhadra visited the school to appear in a written test for selection to the post of TGT-Physical Education, petitioner impersonated himself as PGT Chemistry in the school and lured her to pay him a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- so that he could get her appointed as TGT-Physical Education by using his good contacts with the Managing Committee of the school. As per the complaint, petitioner visited her house with one Mr. Anand Kumar Jain, in the evening of 08.06.2008 and accepted a payment of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- in cash and Rs.1,50,000/- by cheque from her. The petitioner gave her a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 31.07.2008 as guarantee, which was dishonoured on presentation on the ground of insufficient funds.

4. Consequently, a Memorandum dated 29.06.2009 was issued to the petitioner proposing to hold inquiry against him. Petitioner submitted his written statement in defence, which was not accepted. An inquiry was initiated based on the complaint of aforesaid Mrs. Subhadra.

5. Following four charges were levelled against the petitioner:

i. Article I: He impersonated as PGT Chemistry with an intention to take advantage of his false status.

ii. Article II: He demanded and accepted money from Ms. Subhadra for getting her appointed as TGT (Physical Education) at the Air Force School.

iii. Article III: He issued cheque nos. 933671 for Rs.2,00,000/- and 810117 for Rs.1,50,000/- to Ms. Subhadra which were dishonoured.

iv. Article IV: He took loans/incurring debts beyond his repayment capacity.

6. During the course of enquiry, all the charges against petitioner were proved, except the first charge of introducing himself as PGT Chemistry to Mrs. Subhadra. Inquiry report dated 09.09.2009 was served upon petitioner to which he submitted his representation dated 12.10.2009. Petitioner's representation was found to be unsatisfactory and a penalty of dismissal was imposed on him vide order dated 14.10.2009.

7. An appeal was filed by petitioner before Delhi School Tribunal challenging the dismissal order dated 14.10.2009. By impugned order dated 05.08.2010, learned Delhi School Tribunal dismissed the appeal of petitioner, thereby upholding the dismissal of petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

8. On behalf of petitioner, it is contended that a frivolous and motivated complaint was made by Mrs. Subhadra who attempted to bully the petitioner to pay back the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- lent by her to petitioner. With a view to extort the amount, Mrs. Subhadra filed a false complaint, which was made nearly one year after the alleged incident. The complaint was misconceived and was deliberately levelled against petitioner, with dishonest intention to speedily recover the loan.

9. It is the case on behalf of petitioner that the Disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent no. 1, were in violation of the Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973. The respondent no. 1 in a hurry to impose the penalty, has not complied with the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE Act), which mandates that a dismissal order can only be passed after taking prior approval of the Directorate of Education (DOE).

10. It is further submitted that petitioner has not been held guilty of Article I and charge against petitioner for impersonation has not been proved. Thus, it is contended that if the petitioner has not been held guilty of Article I, there is no question of fi