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

2022:DHC:2405

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

2022:DHC:2405

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 issued

a memorandum wherein it was stated that the Disciplinary Committee being

fully convinced tha