JUDGMENT (ORAL) 08.10.2024

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal impugns judgment dated 13 February 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP (C) 11394/2016, Ravindra Memorial Public School v Director of Education.

2. The appellant joined the Respondent 1-School, “theSchool”,hereinafter as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis in 1988 and continued to serve the School without interruption till June 2013. On the charge that she had inflicted corporal punishment on a Class III student in the School on 17 August 2010 and had abandoned her duties since November 2011, the appellant was subjected to a departmental inquiry resulting in her dismissal from service vide order dated 6 June 2013. The appellant challenged the decision by way of appeal before the learned Delhi School Tribunal, “thelearnedTribunal”,hereinafter By order dated 2 September 2016, the learned Tribunal held that there was no legally admissible evidence on the basis of which the charge against the appellant could be sustained. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal of the appellant from service and directed her reinstatement with full back wages.

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Tribunal, the School approached this Court by way of WP (C) 11394/2016, which stands allowed by the impugned judgment dated 13 February 2018. The learned Single Judge has held that the principles of natural justice were duly followed before dismissing the appellant from service and that the charge against the appellant stood proved by the evidence of a fellow teacher and of a peon.

4. In the circumstances, it was held that the learned Tribunal had erred in setting aside the order dismissing the appellant from service.

Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Tribunal was reversed and the order dismissing the appellant from service was restored.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court by means of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ajay Garg, learned Counsel for the School at length.

7. Mr. Aggarwal assailed the decision to uphold the appellant’s dismissal from service on a ground entirely different from those which were urged before the learned Tribunal. He submitted that the dismissal of the appellant from service was in violation of Section 8(2), (2) Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, no employee of a recognised private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his service be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the Director. of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973, “the DSE Act”,hereinafter as well as Rule 120(2), (2) No order with regard to the imposition of a major penalty shall be made by the disciplinary authority except after the receipt of the approval of the Director. of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, “DSE Rules”,hereinafter, inasmuch as prior approval of the Directorate of Education, “DOE”, hereinafter had not been obtained before dismissing the appellant from service.

8. Mr. Aggarwal submitted that, as the ground taken pertains to the jurisdiction of the School to penalise the appellant, it could be taken at any stage.

9. Mr. Garg initially objected to the line of the argument that Mr. Aggarwal was seeking to adopt, submitting that it was a ground which had not been urged either before the learned Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge.

10. The contention of Mr. Garg cannot be accepted because an issue relating to jurisdiction goes, to employ a time worn cliché “to the very root of the matter” and can be raised at any time. An action without jurisdiction is a nullity from its inception. All further proceedings following on the action stands vitiated. For this reason, the Supreme Court has held, in Hindustan Zinc Ltd v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, (2019) 17 SCC 82 and Chief General Manager, M.P. Power Trading Co Ltd v Narmada Equipments (P) Ltd, (2021) 14 SCC 548 - and in s