HIGH COURT OF DELHI
ROSARY SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS – Respondent
W.P.(C)-212/2018
W.P.(C)212/2018 Page 1 of 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: July 04, 2022
+
W.P.(C) 212/2018, CM APPLs. 860/2018 & 861/2018
ROSARY SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL
..... Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Siddharth Dias and Mr. Umrao Singh
Rawat, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ORS
..... Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rajat Aneja and
Ms. Aparna Shukla, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1.
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
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002405
W.P.(C)212/2018 Page 2 of 26
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
This is a digitally signed Judgement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002405
W.P.(C)212/2018 Page 3 of 26
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