Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Ruchika Rai Madan – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Education & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 1138 of 2023 & CM APPL. 4445 of 2023 & CONT.CAS(C) 272 of 2020 & CM APPL. 11748 of 2020, 19161 of 2020, 17098 of 2022
Decided On : 17-08-2023
Pursuant to an advertisement, the Petitioner was appointed as Principal in a school run by the Society. Subsequently, the Society issued a suspension order, show cause notice, and charge sheet to the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged these actions, contending that the termination order was recalled without any reservation to hold an inquiry, and that the charge sheet was issued without jurisdiction. The Court held that the Society was at liberty to proceed with the inquiry pursuant to the charge sheet, as the Petitioner was an employee of the Society and was selected for appointment as Principal. The Court also directed that the inquiry proceedings should be completed expeditiously and that the Petitioner should be given every opportunity to defend her case effectively. The Court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the Society to proceed with the inquiry proceedings. The Court also clarified that the inquiry officer will render his findings independent of the Court's observations and in accordance with the law, facts, circumstances, and evidence presented during the inquiry proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner was appointed as Principal in a school run by the Society after responding to an advertisement. Subsequently, the Society issued a suspension order, show cause notice, and charge sheet to the Petitioner, which the Petitioner challenged in court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Society was at liberty to proceed with the inquiry pursuant to the charge sheet, as the Petitioner was an employee of the Society and was selected for appointment as Principal. The Court also directed that the inquiry proceedings should be completed expeditiously and that the Petitioner should be given every opportunity to defend her case effectively. The Court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the Society to proceed with the inquiry proceedings.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the suspension order, show cause notice, and charge sheet issued to the Petitioner, as well as the denial of subsistence allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Society was at liberty to proceed with the inquiry pursuant to the charge sheet, as the Petitioner was an employee of the Society and was selected for appointment as Principal. The Court also directed that the inquiry proceedings should be completed expeditiously and that the Petitioner should be given every opportunity to defend her case effectively.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the Society to proceed with the inquiry proceedings. The Court also clarified that the inquiry officer will render his findings independent of the Court's observations and in accordance with the law, facts, circumstances, and evidence presented during the inquiry proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
W.P.(C) 1138/2023 & CM APPL. 4445/2023 (for interim directions)
1. By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the suspension order dated 19.10.2022, show cause notice dated 16.11.2022 and charge-sheet dated 06.01.2023 as well as the order dated 04.02.2021, whereby representation of the Petitioner has been rejected. Writ of certiorari is sought for quashing order dated 18.01.2023 and communication dated 23.01.2023, regarding the claim of the Petitioner for subsistence allowance. Writ of mandamus is sought directing Respondent No. 2/Guru Harkishan Public School (New Delhi) Society (hereinafter referred to as the `Society') to appoint the Petitioner as a Principal in any one of the 12 schools run by it as also a direction to the Society and Respondent No. 3/Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (`DSGMC') to clear all arrears of Petitioner's salary, allowances etc. under 6th CPC w.e.f. 11.09.2015 and under 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016.
2. Factual matrix to the extent necessary and relevant is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Society for appointment to the post of Principal in the schools run by it, Petitioner made an application and after being successful in a rigorous round of interview on 09.05.2015 as well as after verification of her documents, including educational and experience certificates, Petitioner was offered appointment vide letter dated 11.09.2015 in pay band 15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.7600/- and was directed to join duty immediately by reporting to the Director of the Society at the earliest. Petitioner joined on the same day and submitted a joining letter dated 11.09.2015. By a letter dated 12.11.2015, Society confirmed that Petitioner had reported for duty on 11.09.2015.
3. It is averred in the petition that from the date of appointment till 09.09.2016, Petitioner worked dedicatedly and devotedly and received appreciation and accolades for the tasks assigned and successfully accomplished by her. According to the Petitioner, a few months after her joining she started facing discrimination and harassment and was pressurised to tender resignation. Salary was also not regularly paid to her despite repeated requests. When the Petitioner refused to tender her resignation, the Society issued a letter dated 04.05.2016, alleging that Petitioner had not submitted her certificates pertaining to educational qualifications and experience in violation of Code of Conduct for Teachers set out under Rule 123 of Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `DSEAR') and had taken unauthorized leaves for few days in April, 2016. Petitioner responded by a letter dated 10.05.2016 denying the allegations and by way of abundant caution submitted attested photocopies of all her certificates and testimonials again. Not being satisfied with the documents submitted, the Society again called upon her to provide originals of the degree certificates of B.Com., M.Com. and B.Ed. along with marksheets for each year and the experience certificates of having served as TGT, PGT and Principal in various institutions by 26.05.2016.
4. It is stated that premised on some internal inquiry, a Report was given on 15.07.2016 containing false allegations against the Petitioner, leading to a show cause notice dated 12.08.2016, to which she submitted a detailed reply on 23.08.2016 refuting and denying the allegations. However, without paying heed to the response of the Petitioner, the Society terminated her services vide order dated 09.09.2016, despite the Petitioner pointing out in the reply that action could only be taken in consonance with DSEAR and that the allegations were false. Finding merit in the stand of the Petitioner that the certificates/testimonials submitted by her were genuine, Society passed an order dated 07.11.2016 recalling the termination order, unconditionally and without any reservation or caveat. By the same order, Petitioner was asked t
An employment sought on false and forged certificates pertaining to eligibility conditions is void ab initio or non est. Administrative decisions should not be interfered by the Court on an asking by....
Misconduct - Quash of Suspension order - Order of suspension was passed in contemplation of inquiry without referring to misconduct - Direction is issued to disciplinary authority to reconsider wheth....
Merely stating that huge financial losses are caused to the State would not suffice unless the charges are even prima-facie supported by any credible material placed before the court.
The principle of 'No Work, No Pay' cannot be invoked when an employee is willing to work but is kept out due to the actions of the employer, which were ultimately declared illegal by judicial orders.
Charge-sheets should not be quashed at the initial stage and suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or routine manner. The competent authority should examine the charge-sheets and take a deci....
Mistakes in implementation of disciplinary proceedings do not invalidate findings against impersonation if the misconduct is substantiated. Delays in proceedings, while regrettable, do not excuse fra....
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
