Disciplinary proceedings must comply with natural justice principles; failure to provide an opportunity for defense or to follow prescribed procedures invalidates resultant actions.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated November 17, 2017 of the Presiding Officer of the Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal No.11/2017 (`Tribunal', for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent No.2 herein and set aside the charge sheet, appointment of the Inquiry Officer and the removal of the respondent No.2 on the basis of inquiry report dated September 09, 2016 as illegal and arbitrary with cost and directed reinstatement of the respondent No.2. Insofar as the back wages are concerned, the petitioner/School was directed to decide as to how and in what manner, the respondent No.2 shall be entitled to the complete wages.

2. The facts as noted from the record are that the respondent No.2 was appointed by the petitioner/School on probation. Her services were confirmed on July 01, 2014 on completion of two years of probation period. It is the case of the respondent No.2 in the appeal before the Tribunal that she was called by the then Principal, who made certain allegations against her and aggressively interrogated her for an alleged incident of her fake signatures in the staff attendance Register on April 05, 2016. She was coerced to falsely admit, in writing on a piece of paper, to have committed the illegal act of getting her signatures forged in the attendance Register on April 05, 2016, under the threat of termination of her job.

3. On April 29, 2016, she received a show cause notice with respect to the incident dated April 05, 2016. It was alleged that the respondent No.2 while leaving the school premises failed to sign the staff attendance register despite having signed the same in the morning. It has been discovered that she had directed Renuka Daniel, one other staff member to sign the register on her behalf.

4. In the reply dated May 03, 2016 to the show cause notice she clarified that she had not committed any such misconduct. She is being unnecessarily harassed. A chargesheet dated May 31, 2016 was issued to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 filed a reply to the charge sheet on June 09, 2016. On June 22, 2016, the petitioner/School appointed an independent investigator Cyril Minj for the purpose of investigating the matter and to submit his report. The respondent No.2 was called upon to attend the inquiry proceedings vide letter dated July 14, 2016 in the office of the Inquiry Officer on July 20, 2016.

5. It was the case of the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal that the Inquiry Officer discussed the matter with her for about an hour. She told him that, she never asked Renuka Daniel to sign the staff attendance register on her behalf. She was neither provided any document nor was she allowed to cross-examine any witness. Her request for CCTV footage of April 05, 2016 was not accepted.

6. On November 04, 2016, the Chairman of the alleged Disciplinary Committee of the School in disregard of the principle of natural justice issued a memorandum wherein it was stated that the Disciplinary Committee being fully convinced that offence committed by the respondent No.2 was of serious nature it has been decided to impose a major penalty of termination upon her. The respondent No.2 submitted her reply dated December 08, 2016 to the above memorandum/inquiry report denying all the allegations made against her and clarifying her stand.