The Managing Committee of Nutan Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School v. Director of Education & Anr.

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-school impugns the judgment of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dated 30.4.2009 whereby the appeal of the respondent No.2/teacher before the DST was allowed and it was directed that the respondent No.2 herein will stand reinstated in service. The school management was also directed to act in terms of Rule 121 of the 2013:DHC:4129 Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 for deciding the issue of payment of salary for the intervening period, allowances and other consequential benefits to the respondent No.2 herein.

2. The case of the petitioner-school before the DST was that respondent No.2 used to inflict corporal punishment and therefore various memos were given to her. It is stated that the respondent No.2 thereafter had resigned. However, it was simultaneously also pleaded by the petitioner before the DST that Articles of Charges were served upon the respondent No.2, enquiry proceedings were held, the Enquiry Officer gave his report and thereafter the respondent No.2’s services were terminated by giving three months’ notice pay.

3. The DST in the impugned judgment has held that an employee/teacher of a school can only be removed in terms of Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 and which requires following of the proper procedure of issuance of Articles of Charges, conduct of proper enquiry following the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer’s report being given to the chargsheeted person for representing before the Disciplinary Authority which has to award the punishment. DST has found that there is no proof of Articles of Charges being served upon the respondent No.2, that the Enquiry Officer has given notice to the respondent No.2 to appear in the enquiry proceedings, that the enquiry report was served upon the respondent No.2 and consequently the Disciplinary Authority thereafter passed an order of removal from services of the respondent No.2.

4. During the course of hearing, I put three specific queries to the counsel for the petitioner as under:

(i) to show as to how Articles of Charges were served upon the respondent No.2 by the petitioner-school,

(ii) what and which was the notice given by the Enquiry Officer to the respondent No.2 to appear in the enquiry proceedings, and

(iii) as to how and when the Enquiry Officer’s report was given to the respondent No.2 to enable her to make representation to the Disciplinary Authority and which Disciplinary Authority has heard the respondent No.2 before passing the order of termination of services.

5. To none of the queries, any document could be pointed out to this Court as to how the Articles of Charges were served upon the respondent No.2, whether at all the Enquiry Officer gave notice to the respondent No.2 to appear in the enquiry proceedings and as to whether the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice on the basis of the Enquiry Officer’s report and attaching the same for the respondent No.2 to give response as to any proposed punishment. Therefore, Rule 120 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 is squarely violated. The enquiry proceedings and the order of the termination of services of the respondent No.2 are therefore wholly illegal and only an eyewash.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 22, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne