$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10899/2018, CM APPL. 42512/2018 & CM APPL.

46947/2018 PREETI MATHUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deeptakirti Verma & Ms. Neha Sharma, Advocate.

versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. N. K. Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam & Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates for R-1 to 5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. This petition concerns disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, who is working as PGT (Political Science) at SRSD Senior Secondary School. The Petitioner was initially appointed as PGT (Political Science) in 1999 and, in 2008, was asked to discharge duties as Officiating Principal. During the period 2013-2014, the school was taken over by the Directorate of Education (“DoE”), pursuant to which the Petitioner reverted to the post of PGT (Political Science).

2. The case of the Petitioner is that between 2015 and 2017 she submitted several complaints to departmental authorities alleging administrative and financial irregularities committed by Ms. Sadhna Mittal, who had been appointed as Authorised Officer by the DoE. According to the Petitioner, no action was taken on those complaints, compelling her to escalate the matter by a complaint dated 27^th February, 2017 addressed to various authorities, including the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”).

3. On 18^th August, 2017, an Office Memorandum was issued to the Secretary (Vigilance), GNCTD indicating that the complaint warranted investigation. Shortly thereafter, a memorandum dated 9^th March, 2018 was served upon the Petitioner, purportedly initiating disciplinary enquiry proceedings. By a further order dated 20^th April, 2018, Mr. K.C. Arora, Education officer (Retd.), was appointed as the Inquiry Officer.

4. The Petitioner challenges the aforesaid actions primarily on the ground that the Disciplinary Action Committee (“DAC”) which initiated the proceedings was not constituted in accordance with Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973¹ and that the proceedings are vitiated by bias. 5. This Court, vide order dated 19^th November, 2018, stayed the operation of the memorandum dated 9^th March, 2018 and the order dated

20^th April, 2018 appointing the Enquiry Officer.

6. Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, counsel for the Petitioner, raises two principal objections. First, the DAC itself was unlawfully constituted, as the impugned proceedings describe the Chairperson as “DDE (South East) A&PS” and also refer to “DDE (Zone-25) A&PS” as the Director’s nominee, which are not identifiable posts in the Directorate’s administrative structure and do not appear in the departmental directory, thereby rendering the initiation of proceedings without jurisdiction. Second, the DAC included a Teacher Representative, Ms. Mamta Joshi, who is an accused in FIR No. 167/2011 dated 30^th April, 2011, registered at P.S. Amar Colony, Delhi, which was lodged at the instance of the Petitioner in relation to an incident dated 25^th April, 2011, and her participation gives rise to a manifest and reasonable apprehension of bias vitiating the proceedings at inception.

7. On the other hand, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel for the Respondent, contests the maintainability of the petition, submitting that ordinarily writ jurisdiction is not invoked to interdict disciplinary proceedings at a preliminary stage and the Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to respond before the enquiry authority.

8. On the question of constitution of the DAC, the Respondent contends that the designation “DDE (South East) A&PS” refers to a designated post dealing with aided and unaided private schools in the district, and place reliance on an office order dated 7^th September, 2017 whereby Ms. Usha Chaturvedi was posted as Deputy Director of Education (Aided and Un- Aided) and entrusted with such charge. However, beyond this, the Counter Affidavit does not clarify the status, designation or author