Seema Jariwala v. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the departmental proceedings commenced against her in terms of the chargesheet dated 1.8.2013.

2. On behalf of the petitioner, following arguments are raised to challenge the departmental proceedings:- 2013:DHC:5237

(i) Departmental proceedings have been initiated without the chargesheet having been formulated by disciplinary committee and which is so required under Rule 118 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973.

(ii) The memos which have been issued are without any basis and false.

(iii) Petitioner is wrongly denied the services of an advocate as a defence assistant; and

(iv) Petitioner has not been given the list of witnesses and the documents which are sought to be relied upon by the Management/school in the enquiry proceedings.

3. So far as the first aspect of non compliance of Rule 118 is concerned, it is directed that since constitution of a disciplinary committee is necessary for issuing of the chargesheet and appointment of the enquiry officer, the respondent no.2-school will give copy of the Minutes of Meeting of the Managing Committee of the school by which the disciplinary committee was constituted for enquiring into the charges against the petitioner and for which disciplinary committee has thereafter framed the chargesheet. In case, the respondent-school has committed a technical lapse, it is observed that the Management Committee of the school can now rectify the lapse by rectifying the proceedings by taking necessary steps inasmuch as, disciplinary proceedings have not reached a very advance stage and examination of witnesses of the management has still to commence. The necessary Minutes of Meeting of the managing committee and the proceedings of the disciplinary committee of the respondent no.2-school be furnished to the petitioner within a period of two weeks of receipt of copy of the present order.

4. So far as the aspect that memos issued against the petitioner as stated in the chargesheet are false, this aspect cannot be considered by this Court. It is settled law that truth and falsity of the allegations viz merits of the matter, have to be decided in the departmental proceedings and not by the Court. This court can only go into the issues which go to the root of the departmental proceedings including issues of lack of jurisdiction. This argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is misconceived and therefore rejected.

5. The third aspect which is urged on behalf of the petitioner is the entitlement of the petitioner to appoint an advocate as a defence assistant. In terms of the circular dated 25.3.1991, issued by the Director of Educationrespondent no.2, unless the school has other specific rules, the rules governing government employees apply to departmental proceedings against employees of the aided and unaided schools. As per Rule 14(8) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, when applied mutatis mutandis, a defence assistant can only be an employee of the school or an ex-employee of the school. I have recently held so in the case titled as Rajesh Mathews Vs. Director of Education & Ors. in W.P.(C) 632/12 decided on 7.10.2013. Accordingly, the request of the petitioner for appointing of an advocate to appear in the departmental proceeding is rejected.

6. The last argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is that petitioner should be given the list of witnesses and the documents which the school/management proposes to rely in the departmental proceedings. I do not think that this can be an issue and petitioner should therefore be supplied with the list of witnesses which the management-school proposes to rely upon to lead evidence in the departmental proceedings and management/school is directed to supply copies of all the documents which will be filed and relied upon by it in the departmental proceedings to the petitioner. The needful be done by the school-management within a period of two weeks of receipt of copy of the present order.

7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed so far as the challenge to the enquiry proceedings is concerned. However directions as stated above are issued for giving the petitioner the list of witnesses and the documents which will be relied upon and filed by the management/school and also the petitioner will be supplied copies of the minutes of meeting of the managing committee and disciplinary committee with respect to initiation of the departmental proceedings and framing of charge-sheet against the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the limited extent as stated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Dasti to counsel for the petitioner.

OCTOBER 09, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib